After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

This is not about whether or not FCPX is "professional." Instead I am wondering if, after a massive publicity disaster which labeled it non-professional, if the general consensus of editors is coming around to its side. From what I am seeing it is not, despite updates and plugins that have added back some of the functionality missing from its first release.

An anicdotal incident illustrates this. I recently edited a piece for a DSLR shooter. A very simple edit that involved a couple of fades to a one-camera recording of a live performance. A piece of cake. The shooter asked me to do the edit because all she had was FC5 and was having issues with H264 footage.

I suggested she get FCPX, which I felt would work fine for her. She was surprised because all she was hearing how terrible it was a program from fellow shooters and editor friends. In fact most folks I know in the biz are unaware of the upgrades and still kind of see FCPX as if it was still in its first release form.

True or not, this seems to be the perception in my circle. Complete non-trust of Apple and ageneral disdain of FCPX. Will Apple ever be able to counter this view? And no matter how powerful a tool FCPX may become in the future, will it ever be accepted among "pros" again. Did the surrounding bad publicity in its original release taint it too much?

My opinion is it hasn't changed.
My opinion is also that if folks actually take the time (but hopefully they are too busy with paying clients to learn new software) to cut a project, they will like it too.

I don't think the perception will change until FCPX spends a few years being used on very high profile projects like 'Hollywood' feature films and big, network TV shows. I'm saying this just based on what it took for FCP classic to be viewed as a serious Avid contender on a wide scale as to the NLE people who couldn't afford an Avid used. Productions like Scrubs and Cold Mountain were the first 'big' projects to cut a path starting w/FCP 3 & 4 and I don't feel like it was until FCP 6 that the program stopped getting scoffed at left and right.

Apps like Premiere and Vegas are used by a ton of people but they are rarely, if ever, used on high end projects which is a big reason they are typically considered second class programs even if they are capable NLEs w/unique features.

What I find odd is the resistence by people who aren't really pros, like this DSLR shooter. I myself still use FC7 and have been gravitating towards PPRO but am waiting for the PPRO 6 to work out its bugs before I upgrade from 5.5. I am purchasing a new camera which may finally force me out of FC7. FCPX doesn't feel right for my particular workflow.

However, what I find kind of interesting is resistence from folks for whom I feel FCPX would work well. DSLR shooters with simple audio needs, little or no compositing, and not that much experience with NLEs. They are not really looking at the product itself, but more at the perception of "pros" they interact with.

These folks want to use the same thing the "pros" use, whether such a thing fits their needs or not. And they don't see FCPX as professional. Oddly they will look at Premiere (which isn't used that much at all by the hollywood establishment). It just seems that Apple shot itself in the foot with the way they released FCPX, and because of the backlash, people that might really get good use from it may be staying away.

I wonder if Apple and FCPX will ever get beyond this. I mean, its been a year and the negative label still seems to be sticking.

I've purposefully jumped into FCPX full-force on certain projects to see what works and what breaks. At an industry event I went to the other night, I was telling people what was working for me and what wasn't. The general consensus among facility managers, editors, etc... that I spoke to was that they had no real use for FCPX right now. Most have gone back to Avid and are waiting for Premiere to mature a bit more.

I see great potential in X, but also I experience harsh realities every time I use it. I would still label X as too buggy and unreliable. But that is not stopping me from using it on some projects.

What stops me from using it is that most of my production clients don't have FCPX and don't want it - or have no editors trained in it. So, when I use FCPX, I'm basically on an island. The production co's don't want me to use it because they can't get back into the projects to do future work.

I've been diving into Premiere, as well. Again, great potential here. My general feeling is 6.5 will be the "killer app."

At the last LAFCPUG event, Michael Horton felt that FCPX would bounce back within 36 months. I think given the negative feelings about X and the amount of work still needed on it, that's about right.

[Clint Wardlow]"What I find odd is the resistence by people who aren't really pros, like this DSLR shooter.

I think Michael answers to this pretty well.

[Michael Garber]"What stops me from using it is that most of my production clients don't have FCPX and don't want it - or have no editors trained in it. So, when I use FCPX, I'm basically on an island. The production co's don't want me to use it because they can't get back into the projects to do future work."

There are also many people that make gear decisions to help legitimize themselves in their own eyes as well as in the eyes of a client and if the 'pros' they follow discount FCPX odds are they will too. It's a ripple effect.

FCP classic ran into the same issue and it took years of people that could afford Avid, that knew Avid, to choose FCP over Avid before the perception shifted. It took people like Shane Ross, Walter Biscardi, Mark Raudonis, Walter Murch, the Coen Brothers, Digital Film Tree, etc., talking about how they successfully use FCP for big projects before the perception changed and FCP was seen a legit alternative to Avid.

There can be a 'grass roots' FCPX movement, just like there was for FCP, but until it becomes more widely used on higher end projects it will always be seen as a less program than Avid or FCP.

If you're doing a multicam era canon shoot, FCP X is it. CS6 can't sync up via audio, and FCP 7 is dead. Well, it's by no means dead, but unless you want to run a dual boot or older system, it's getting there.

The power of X is amazing on a nice new iMac. Just wish it would add a few more features back in to play nice with others, add back audio tracks, and make a switch to turn on/off ripple mode (magnetics).

Still waiting for smoke to blow me away. CS6 on a Mac does not. And I just don't want to go back to Avid. What's the fun in that?

I think one thing that hasn't changed since last June is that a lot of people are still making up their minds about FCPX without really using it. There's really a lot there to like, but it's not for everyone.

FCP had became nearly universal before its EOL, sometimes irrespective of whether it was the right tool for the job or not. I don't see that happening with FCPX any time soon. All the NLEs' different strengths, weaknesses, and preferred workflows are being evaluated now.

If Apple had launched with 10.0.3 or 10.0.4, we might all be having a different conversation.

I think people need to remember why FCP became so popular. It was cheaper than all the other alternatives for what it could do. Avid priced itself out of the market that built the grassroots movement with FCP. That is not the case today. FCPX basically tried to repeat the same plan at $300 vs $2500. But anyone who makes a living off of editing will pay $2500 to use what is considered the "gold standard" in professional editing, a title that's always been held by MC. Today there are no barriers, accept for those who were using cracked versions of FCP, and want a pro NLE for sub $500.

People want to use what they think the pros are using. They want to know that if an opportunity arises, to make a significant jump in their careers, they are not held back by their lack of experience on the software being most used in the industry.

[David Powell]"I think people need to remember why FCP became so popular. It was cheaper than all the other alternatives for what it could do."

I really don't think that's fair to FCP. It was a lot more than just cheap for what it could do. It might well have been considered cheap for what it could do at several multiples of its price.

FCP was incredibly flexible and tactile. You could rock the keyboard shortcuts, or you could grab media in the timeline and sculpt your edit with a mouse. You could composite in the timeline and manipulate the media directly in the canvas window.

FCP's "weak" media management eventually became a strength in file-based workflows.

FCP interchanged in many workflows -- at first through EDL, and later through XML. You could cut file-based, tape-based, or film-based media.

It was software-only, so you had the same user experience whether you were working on DV material with Firewire on a G3 Pismo laptop, or a Cinewave HD card in a G4 tower.

FCP also brought us ProRes, which has become a linchpin for Apple in many post workflows.

FCP established or popularized all the "modern" things that non-Avid editors complain about Avid not having.

There are many other cheap NLEs that fell by the wayside. FCP won on real merit.

I second all you say here, Walter. I was not attracted to FCP by price but by its versatility. At its height, it could do so many things that Media Composer could not, especially before MC3. I feel sad that, even with its passing, I still have this argument with many of the Avid-only folk. It really wasn't about the cheap seats, y'all.

People came for the price and stayed for the features. If FCP wasn't in the realm of 'so cheap you might as well buy a copy' it would have struggled a lot more, IMO. It's kinda like the color grading scene of maybe 5-6 years ago. Sure, at $25k FinalTouch was a bargain compared to $250k for a DaVinci but it's still $25k. Then Apple acquires FT, rebands it as Color and releases it as part of FC Studio package and suddenly a color grading desktop revolution is born.

I third it.
We moved from Media 100 to FCP for the app and the ability to use it hardware independent.
No successful shop makes decisions like this based on the cost of the systems if the performance isn't there.

I came to FCP for price and stayed with it partially because I liked its versatility and partially because it eventually overtook my client base. There was a time I couldn't pay people to use Avid and many times I would've chosen Avid over FCP for stability and media management reasons. That most often proved not to be possible. If Apple really does commit to FCP X then I suspect I may be faced with a similar dilemma in the not to distant future. The bottom line is I wear the clothes the sponsor pays me to wear and I work with whatever hammer the client chooses.

[TImothy Auld]"The bottom line is I wear the clothes the sponsor pays me to wear and I work with whatever hammer the client chooses."

I respect this orientation at one level. But I'm uncomfortable with it at another.

Likely because I've seen clients gleefully pick hammers based on "industry standards" that are hopelessly wrong for the task at hand.

I'm content to be the person to pick my own tool. If I can master it, I expect the only barrier to be whether the work I output meets the quality standards and communications needs of my clients.

To let them force me to use tools I feel don't fit me properly is a road to frustration on both sides.

Back when "big iron" costs made it impossible for the person at the controls to own the system, forcing workers to use a factory owners expensive machinery made sense.

But those days are nearly gone.

I just can't see the downside of allowing an artist skilled at a particular type of work who wants to use Smoke, AVID, X or whatever - based on their familiarity with the tools and their individual working style - to not only make the call, but arrive at the place where the work gets done with their toolset in hand.

Once upon a time, a video editing system was a threshing machine - expensive and affordable only to whoever owned the farm.

Today it's becoming more and more like a guitar. The player brings the ax they prefer - and jack into the shop band to play their part.

My 2 cents anyway.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"Today it's becoming more and more like a guitar. The player brings the ax they prefer - and jack into the shop band to play their part."

This is true to the extent that all guitars use the same plug.

It depends what your deliverable is. If you're delivering a final product, it doesn't matter what NLE you use. If you are expectd to work in a team, then the workflow matters as much (or more) than the final product.

Interchange and collaborative workflows are improving, but they are still not strengths for FCPX. This is a direct result of Apple choosing such a different design for their NLE.

Often large companies have their own edit suites and huge media management systems for everything from browsing old projects/files to reviving previous projects from backup tapes to re-edit or restore for use in other projects.

The freelancers working for them get to be outsourced because their final product can be integrated into the system. It can be changed by staffers at the last minute before air. And right now the ones I work with are trying to figure out what's next. Generally MC or Premiere. Since most of these corporations (and the freelancers) were using Avid just 5-10 years ago, they don't see it as a struggle to go back. They see Premiere as an unknown, and FCP X as a non-contender.

It may just be that a year from now, there may be no legit standard in Post for corporate. I suspect MC will hold onto film and tv for the most part. They'll earn back many of the houses they lost in the last few years to FCP legacy, and Premiere might win over a few too. X will get in there with a few startup shows. My .02

[Bill Davis]"
Back when "big iron" costs made it impossible for the person at the controls to own the system, forcing workers to use a factory owners expensive machinery made sense.

But those days are nearly gone."
While the costs have certainly come down incompatible hardware, software, codecs, etc., still keep it from being a 'bring your own guitar' free for all. Even small shops might have multiple seats or maybe just one seat and if you work w/them it's bring your own rig but you still need to use the same software they do.

Susan E. Morse (Woody Allen's editor for many years) recently got brought on to edit Louis C.K.'s show. Susan is Avid and Louis is FCP. Susan will learn FCP because that's easier than retooling the shows whole workflow for Avid.

If you are a one-seat shop that's just responsible for delivering the final product to the client

Honestly, as the gear gets cheaper and cheaper and editing becomes more easily done remotely then collaboration will be on the rise, not the decline, IMO. I've edited a number of projects where the project & assets were shuttled around on portable HDDs so even though we all working remotely the collaboration need to be the same as if we were all working under one roof.

[Andrew Kimery]"I've edited a number of projects where the project & assets were shuttled around on portable HDDs so even though we all working remotely the collaboration need to be the same as if we were all working under one roof."

Yeah, but if what you're delivering is a opening title, at what point does that become the equivalent of hiring a photoshop artist to design a logo?

The only reason to demand that the artist do it in Photoshop is because you want the ability to open and mess around with the pieces. That can be a good thing. Or it can be a VERY bad thing depending on who's doing the opening and who's doing the messing.

On one hand, if you need to change a simple element it's a godsend to be working in consistent software. But increasingly, a tool like Pixelmator can open a layered Photoshop file and make the same changes, every bit as easily.

And none of that addresses what happens If some idiot who's never read the brand book decides that it will look better if they darken the blue in the type - not understanding that that color is a brand element that the client demands to be as consistent as possible.

To me, Apple got this pretty right in Motion 5. They've provided some control at the level of FCP-X over universals like re-typing title text easily - but essentially "walled off" some of the more complex aspects of the design process via the "publish parameter" functions.

My concern is that the higher up the food chain you go in the realm of design and editing, the less you want to make the entire process accessible to the whole team. One way to do that is to build complex workflows with specialists in-house - and wall off people via access restrictions. The other method is to let the designers "reach in" and apply their expertise directly into the project creation stream.

And if you opt for the latter, then each contributor using their own tools and methods is perfectly reasonably - rather than making them come into a fixed "seat" and work on only the tools the company provides.

I guess I just see more work available in the distributed creation model these days rather than the "under one roof facility" - but I know many others work inside that more traditional model.

I also think affordably powerful tools are a reason I think traditional Ad Agencies are in so much stress. It's pretty inefficient to maintain huge facilities and teams of professionals that sink or swim on the high dollar projects that come and go - rather than building agile teams of highly skilled practitioners and letting them work wherever and whenever they like.

That's the main trend I've been working within for the past 3 years or so. I haven't a clue which shop or state my next gig is going to come from. My wife and I have worked as part of virtual teams responsible for digital creative content delivery for clients in St.Louis, San Diego, Nashville, and Provo over the past six months.

None of them have a clue what my shop looks like, nor what software I'm working with.

They want the final work delivered.

Actually, now that I think about it, this whole discussion, and FCP-X itself might be fundamentally about control.

Not so long ago, the shop that owned the iron and the talent used to have all the control. Now, that's shifting. The control is whoever has the skills to do the best work.

To the extent that a shop does care, they're looking for more control. Which is fine if they're paying the bills.

But the big functional change is that it's not REQUIRED that there be a big shop to support big talent or big ideas. Big talent can work in their spare bedroom if they so choose.

That's a big change, IMO.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"The only reason to demand that the artist do it in Photoshop is because you want the ability to open and mess around with the pieces. That can be a good thing. Or it can be a VERY bad thing depending on who's doing the opening and who's doing the messing... My concern is that the higher up the food chain you go in the realm of design and editing, the less you want to make the entire process accessible to the whole team. One way to do that is to build complex workflows with specialists in-house - and wall off people via access restrictions. The other method is to let the designers "reach in" and apply their expertise directly into the project creation stream."

And the best solution is proper production management.

Incompatibility is not a feature. When contributors use esoteric tools, it should be for their unique functionality, not to make it harder for non-experts to change their work.

[Bill Davis]"But increasingly, a tool like Pixelmator can open a layered Photoshop file and make the same changes, every bit as easily."

[Bill Davis]"To me, Apple got this pretty right in Motion 5. They've provided some control at the level of FCP-X over universals like re-typing title text easily - but essentially "walled off" some of the more complex aspects of the design process via the "publish parameter" functions."

Agreed that this is very cool, at least in theory. None of my clients are using FCPX at the moment, so I haven't had a real opportunity to rig graphics packages in Motion for them.

[Bill Davis]"That's the main trend I've been working within for the past 3 years or so. I haven't a clue which shop or state my next gig is going to come from. My wife and I have worked as part of virtual teams responsible for digital creative content delivery for clients in St.Louis, San Diego, Nashville, and Provo over the past six months. None of them have a clue what my shop looks like, nor what software I'm working with. They want the final work delivered."

You are a production company. You are expected to deliver a final product. If you're writing, shooting, and editing yourself, you've got the whole workflow totally self-contained.

As you add independent collaborators, though, the workflow increases in complexity. Production management is doing their job if they care about the how as well as the what.

[Bill Davis]"Not so long ago, the shop that owned the iron and the talent used to have all the control. Now, that's shifting. The control is whoever has the skills to do the best work. To the extent that a shop does care, they're looking for more control. Which is fine if they're paying the bills. But the big functional change is that it's not REQUIRED that there be a big shop to support big talent or big ideas. Big talent can work in their spare bedroom if they so choose. That's a big change, IMO."

That's been shifting for years, though. We could debate when exactly the desktop editorial revolution began, but I think I'd peg the beginning of the shift with the release of the UVW-1800.

I remember the UVW 1800! One of my early clients gave me one so that I could narrate their local Real Estate show for local TV show using it. I remember it was very finicky as to Sync, and it took me a week to figure out a way to fake a black burst signal so the damn thing would record as a standalone unit!

I haven't really had time to say hi since we got to spend some time together at NAB, but the whole show experience was much more fun by virtue of getting to meet you and the other guys from here and getting to chat without a keyboard in the way.

As to this thread, overall, I think FCP-X is getting over it's freshman slump very nicely.

People who don't use it still don't "get it" very easily, but I've come to expect that.

It seemed so simple and "dumbed down" at first, and here we are a year later, and editors with decades of experience often still can't see it's particular forest for the trees, irrespective of whether that forest is anyplace they'll ever want to live or work.

And all I want to see is that those who argue against it, do so from a position of understanding rather than one of ignorance. Understanding has been a clear hallmark of your contributions, here which is probably why we get along so well, even tho we still often diverge on our opinions of X's attributes.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

And by all means please keep pushing me on the places where you see things differently.

Tested opinions are nearly always better than untested ones.

Between the two of us, perhaps we'll convince one or two people here that disagreeing and being disagreeable aren't the same thing - tho I'll probably need a stream of additional coaching from you if I'm going to get to your level in that arena!

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

Howdy, Bill. Many thanks for your kind words here, as well as for meeting up with me, Moody, and Jeff at NAB. It was really great to shake hands, put faces with names, and get to know one another better.

[Bill Davis]"I remember the UVW 1800! One of my early clients gave me one so that I could narrate their local Real Estate show for local TV show using it. I remember it was very finicky as to Sync, and it took me a week to figure out a way to fake a black burst signal so the damn thing would record as a standalone unit!"

The UVW-1800 lacked the feature set of the gold standard BVW-75, but it also lacked the price tag, putting deck ownership in the range of motivated individuals instead of just facilities. In my mind, this was the first shot of what became known as the DV revolution, but which was really just our niche's segment of the good-enough revolution [link], where "broadcast quality" softened to "broadcast format" before dissolving altogether. Vilfredo Pareto [link] is one tenacious bastard.

I think the VX1000 and FCP v1 just followed in the UVW-1800's footsteps, and I think FCPX is the evolutionary continuation of that trend.

[Bill Davis]"And by all means please keep pushing me on the places where you see things differently."

I think most of the times we disagree are precisely because we see things differently. Among the contributors on this forum, there's huge diversity in perspective, because there's huge diversity in market, specialty, input, work product, skill set, business structure, budget, schedule, partners, and clients.

Since you, Aindreas, Andrew, Chris, Craig, David, Jeremy, Jules, Lance, Michael, Steve, Tony, and I all do such different work (along with the host of other contributors and readers here), it shouldn't come as a surprise that we all see something different when we look at FCPX.

What's more surprising to me, in retrospect, was that we all saw something so similar when we looked at FCP7.

"What's more surprising to me, in retrospect, was that we all saw something so similar when we looked at FCP7."

You see, to me it seems that, limitations aside which could have been fixed over time, FCP was very very very good. My biggest frustration is not having to find a new NLE although that is a drag, but that neither PP6 nor FC10 are as good as editing on FCP. Sure it had flaws and issues but at the same time it had a lot of great sensible little short cuts and features that seem so logical and sensible that them not being in the others almost beggars belief.

Despite being frequently told I'm scared of leaving the safety zone of the past I am not. Watch me for a week in my life you will see I love exploring the new and trying stuff out to see if something is better. But no one will convince me that a track less NLE is a step forward. Even apple have put in things to make it mimic tracks more. I will always, in the back of my mind, consider FC10 but I won't play with it until I have nothing else to do with my free time because at its core it doesn't appeal to me. Throw into the mix it is reportedly buggy, that one needs to learn it and all it's workarounds, that it has poor window layout options, and personally I really dislike the aesthetic of the design and look (too many thumbnails and Nintendo-esque looking design choices for me) then it is still second from bottom on my list of choices, just before iMovie.

PP is far more like my preferred and intuitive way of editing and so I am drawn to it. I really love the flexibility of the windows layouts and they have helped me speed up things. I love that it seems to work with no rendering needed on my machine. But it too falls short when compared with FCP. I don't know or understand what is under the hood, and don't need to because I read and when others who know more than me say it is good I believe them. In fact I don't doubt under the hood FC10 is better than FCP. But PP is missing a lot of the sensible and intuitive short cuts and ways of working that made FCP a true joy. 3rd party plugs also have serious issues at he moment. At least transitions do and unless it sorts that it will never be as good as FCP to me. Not through technical limitations, but through ease and joy of editing. You know, the really important part of the editing process.

For me of the two PP is the one I believe will end up being my replacement. I think no matter what apple fix in FC10 they have thrown the baby out with the bath water and by chasing a certain market, one which is perceived to be broader, they are excluding another market where people who edit simply don't want to do it their way because the 'old way' wasn't old, but rather very good and far from broken.

I have said before FCP has a halo effect because it was used by Pros. And I mean top end names who the world hears about, not pros as in me and Steve and Craig and bill who earn money but no one knows or cares about (apart from our mums of course). I bought into FCP because of that. And as is mentioned in this thread already that halo effect is going. Some of the market apple have chased are already looking down their noses at FC10 because they chucked the baby out with the bath water and the Pros (definition above) aren't interested.

A lot of arguments are that FC10 appeals to one stop shops, to a new generation of editors, to the web 2.0 dynamic etc etc, but on the whole people are not as 22nd century as marketing departments need or want them to be. It's not the £200, £500 or £1000 cost that is the biggest consideration when people who will edit long term and possibly for money make their choice, it is the thousands of hours of their lives they will spend learning and working with that tool and how that tool fits in with both potential collaboration (even if that is getting a job in the future) and perceptions of where that person wants to get to and how they are seen.

What hasn't changed over the last year is that apple decided to leave the game and start another one.

[Jules bowman]"You see, to me it seems that, limitations aside which could have been fixed over time, FCP was very very very good. My biggest frustration is not having to find a new NLE although that is a drag, but that neither PP6 nor FC10 are as good as editing on FCP. Sure it had flaws and issues but at the same time it had a lot of great sensible little short cuts and features that seem so logical and sensible that them not being in the others almost beggars belief."

[Herb Sevush]"[Jules bowman] "You see, to me it seems that, limitations aside which could have been fixed over time, FCP was very very very good. My biggest frustration is not having to find a new NLE although that is a drag, but that neither PP6 nor FC10 are as good as editing on FCP. Sure it had flaws and issues but at the same time it had a lot of great sensible little short cuts and features that seem so logical and sensible that them not being in the others almost beggars belief."

I second that emotion.
"

I think the single little thing that I miss most is the color-coded TC overlay that you can turn on and off in the record monitor. I can't believe that no one else has something similar. I ignored this for years, but over the last three I've come to use it a lot. I find it exceptionally useful.

[Jeremy Garchow]"Herb, do you work truly unlinked or just with linked selection off?"

The first thing I do after I create an assembly is unlink everything. If you notice the "nothin' attached to nothin" below my name it refers to my style of editing. Possibly because of all my multicam work, possibly because I started out cutting film, the idea of leaving my audio attached to the video seems like editing in molasses. But in order to cut the way I like I need to be able to see my sync relationships at a glance, constantly.

I'm away shooting next years series this month, when I get back I'll open up my PPro 6 disks and give it a test ride. From what I can discern so far I do not think it will be the answer for me. As much as I don't want to I might have to spend another year with Legacy, cursing Apple under my breath.

After avoiding it for 15 years, you might be right. One of my issues going with Avid is we now shoot in ProRes. There's no way I am going to re-wrap 14 Terrabytes of material (which is what we create when we shoot a series) to DNxHD. I know Avid claims it can now work with ProRes directly, but I have to know that I'm not loosing any functionality doing so.

[Herb Sevush]" I know Avid claims it can now work with ProRes directly, but I have to know that I'm not loosing any functionality doing so."

What you would be likely losing is some stability because, if you have Quicktime ProRes files, you'd need to work with them directly through AMA (Avid Media Access) to avoid duplicating space, and that would limit some export functionality.

However, if you're on a Mac (which you obviously are) you can rewrap the Quicktime ProRes files to ProRes MXF files which gives you full functionality and the stability Avid is known for. It's like rewrapping P2 footage in FCP - it double the disk space you need, but it's super fast (basically a file copy with checksum).

If you shoot to ProRes, does your recorder also shoot to DNxHD? If so, you could transition to Avid on the next shoot. Or, since I assume you're backing up your footage, you could transcode the ProRes files directly off the recorder/cards (what are you shooting with) and edit with the Avid ProRes MXF files and place the originals on a shelf. Think of rewrapping the ProRes to MXF as your first backup, of sorts, that you're editing with.

[Michael Hancock]"However, if you're on a Mac (which you obviously are) you can rewrap the Quicktime ProRes files to ProRes MXF files which gives you full functionality and the stability Avid is known for. It's like rewrapping P2 footage in FCP - it double the disk space you need, but it's super fast"

I'm coming home with 14 Terrabytes of data. The idea of doubling that to 28 Terra is not practical.

[Michael Hancock]"If you shoot to ProRes, does your recorder also shoot to DNxHD? If so, you could transition to Avid on the next shoot."

That's a possibility I'm exploring, though most recorders that encode to DNxHD do it in a quicktime wrapper.

[Michael Hancock]" you could transcode the ProRes files directly off the recorder/cards (what are you shooting with) and edit with the Avid ProRes MXF files and place the originals on a shelf. Think of rewrapping the ProRes to MXF as your first backup, of sorts, that you're editing with."

I don't go out of my way to unlink SOT (though I always work in unlinked mode) but so many projects I work on involve stems from a separate source than the video, and all they have in common is a 2 pop and TC (which might or might not have a constant off-set) that those windows have become essential to me.

There's certainly no shame, btw, in sticking with 7 for another year. I'm pursuing Adobe and Avid, but I'm fairly confident that I'll be cutting at least something on FCS a year from now.

[Herb Sevush]"The first thing I do after I create an assembly is unlink everything. If you notice the "nothin' attached to nothin" below my name it refers to my style of editing. Possibly because of all my multicam work, possibly because I started out cutting film, the idea of leaving my audio attached to the video seems like editing in molasses. But in order to cut the way I like I need to be able to see my sync relationships at a glance, constantly."

Linked selection off serves that purpose, but also allows alt selection. Do people not edit with linked selection off? I use it all the time, and turn it on all the time, too. Basically, all the time, I'm turning it on or off and liking it.

You prolly won't like premiere then. Im sure you know, there's no Sync indicators for unlinked clips, and you must alt select to move independently.

What I do like about premiere is even though there's no keystroke for moving a/v to different tracks, simply grabbing a clip and dragging audio down or video up moves only the audio or video to adjacent tracks and not both. I find it much faster than 7.

[Jeremy Garchow]"Linked selection off serves that purpose, but also allows alt selection. Do people not edit with linked selection off? I use it all the time, and turn it on all the time, too. Basically, all the time, I'm turning it on or off and liking it. "

Don't even know what "linked slection off" is, which is not unusual with programs like Legacy - so many options, so many ways to do the same thing differently that every time I watch another experienced editor work I learn something new. I'll have to look into this when I get back to the editing room.

[Jeremy Garchow]"What I do like about premiere is even though there's no keystroke for moving a/v to different tracks, simply grabbing a clip and dragging audio down or video up moves only the audio or video to adjacent tracks and not both. I find it much faster than 7. Of course in x, none of that shit is necessary, hahahahahahaha!"

While I know you're being funny here, the fact is "that shit" is always necessary. The magnetic timeline simply lets you move something first, then sort out the implications later. With standard timelines you have to think first, then move. No matter which way you do it thinking will, unhappily, still be involved.

When it's off, you can select audio and video separately and break sync, or trim only one track, but if you hold option and click, it selects the linked audio and video (even if they are out of sync).

It's really the best of both worlds.

Shift-L is the shortcut, to the little "Chain link" button in the top right corner of every sequence.
"

Agreed! This is generally how I work in FCP7. And, it really is the best of both worlds. (And Jeremy, I have to reiterate how happy you made me this morning showing me that TC monitoring box. Too bad about the color-coding, but the box, itself, is enough!)

[Jeremy Garchow]" you can select audio and video separately and break sync, or trim only one track, but if you hold option and click, it selects the linked audio and video (even if they are out of sync). It's really the best of both worlds."

Just tried it and yes it's very handy. Here I've been manually unlinking for years and this was under my nose all the time.

Just to elaborate, once I'm past the assembly stage I never use linked clips. Even with linking on, after you cut a clip into different multicam angles only the first cut stays linked to the longer audio underneath. I can't imagine a scenario where it is useful to keep that sort of L cut linked, and it's a PITA when you want to add a video dissolve and now suddenly you have an audio dissolve as well, or when you want to change audio sources and only later you realize you've changed video sources for some clip 20 seconds down the timeline without realizing it.

[Herb Sevush]"Just to elaborate, once I'm past the assembly stage I never use linked clips. Even with linking on, after you cut a clip into different multicam angles only the first cut stays linked to the longer audio underneath. I can't imagine a scenario where it is useful to keep that sort of L cut linked, and it's a PITA when you want to add a video dissolve and now suddenly you have an audio dissolve as well"

Just to keep with Jeremy's FCP7 tips: There are a series of shortcuts that I use all the time with linked clips. If I select the edit point of a linked clip (selecting both audio and video edit points) but I only want to add a video transition, I use the shortcut CTL+SHIFT+1 and FCP applies the first video transition that exists in your favorites folder to the edit point. Since it's only a video transition, no audio transition is added. You can also replace the "1" with Q, A, or Z to place the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th video transition in your favorites folder at the edit point.

How I often use this: I have 3 basic dissolves of various lengths in my favorites folder (10 fr, 25 fr, 45 fr) which I use all the time. I name them: video 10, video 25, video 45 accordingly. Because FCP organizes favorites alphabetically, I know that video 10 is the top video transition in my favorites. So to add a 10 frame dissolve, even with a linked clip, I hit CTL+SHIFT+1. To add a 45fr dissolve, I hit CTL+SHIFT+A (3rd favorite).

There are also similar shortcuts for favorite audio transitions, video filters and audio filters.

[Chris Harlan]"I think the single little thing that I miss most is the color-coded TC overlay that you can turn on and off in the record monitor. I can't believe that no one else has something similar. I ignored this for years, but over the last three I've come to use it a lot. I find it exceptionally useful."

I use it all the time, too.

Adobe's are in the info window, which I have now placed between the source/record monitor.

At least Adobe's video tc's are stacked in the track order the mirror's your timeline, unlike FCPs. I do appreciate the color coding in FCP though:

FCPX needs a tc overlay to allow viewing of stacked TC's. I do agree. The clip skimming helps, but the "at a glance" method isn't there.

"What's more surprising to me, in retrospect, was that we all saw something so similar when we looked at FCP7"

Well, by V.7 sure. Those of us who were with FCP 1-3 experienced a very different story, as Jeremy pointed out so brilliantly with his "heres the REAL history of FCP Legacy as discussed at the time" post.

Hopefully, we'll all have the same chance to re-assess FCP- X versions 3-7 like we did with Legacy.

The real question may be does the way editing happens for the bulk of the practioners more closely resemble the way editing was done in a suite in the 1980s (which it very much still does at the high end today...or will it change substantially in response to new technology needs and opportunities.

A solid case can be made for both approaches.

But in the 1980s editing HAD to be done in a dedicated room with special, expensive tools accessible to only a very few.

Now that's changed.

What that means is up for grabs.

For some there's absolutely no reason to change that basic model.

For others, that change shouts opportunity.

Both can be right at the same time.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"My concern is that the higher up the food chain you go in the realm of design and editing, the less you want to make the entire process accessible to the whole team. One way to do that is to build complex workflows with specialists in-house - and wall off people via access restrictions. The other method is to let the designers "reach in" and apply their expertise directly into the project creation stream.

I'd disagree and say that the higher up the food chain you go the more you need software to be able to talk to each other. Be it all the collaborating editors using the same NLE or using software that understands industry standards like EDLs, OMFs, etc., so that two different pieces of software can at least talk in a common tongue.

And if you opt for the latter, then each contributor using their own tools and methods is perfectly reasonably - rather than making them come into a fixed "seat" and work on only the tools the company provides.

A homogenous workflow is inherently redundant which is a must in a collaborative edit because Murphy's Law dictates at least one person (or one machine) will become unavailable at the worst possible time. If you started editing a long from project and figured you'd need some help for a couple weeks to meet your deadline would you seriously not put any constraints on what the other editor used for his NLE?

I guess I just see more work available in the distributed creation model these days rather than the "under one roof facility" - but I know many others work inside that more traditional model."

Like in my example I gave before you don't have to be under one roof in order to collaborate and gain advantages by using the same software. For example, take two editors working on different scenes of the same TV show but in different States. They are both have all the media and they both have the same NLE so when they want to compare edit,s and stitch it all together at the end, all they have to do is send a project file. Boom, easy as pie.

[Walter Soyka]"I think one thing that hasn't changed since last June is that a lot of people are still making up their minds about FCPX without really using it. There's really a lot there to like, but it's not for everyone."

That's certainly true, but I don't blame people for that. Its not people's responsibility to work deep into a product that goes against there basic assumptions of how a product should work. I've hung around and have been able to learn a lot of the good things about X, but thats because I'm interested in the dynamics of such things. Had I not been, I would have been gone with nothing more than the locked-down interface and lack of tracks.

[Walter Soyka]"If Apple had launched with 10.0.3 or 10.0.4, we might all be having a different conversation."

That is also quite true. If it had launched at 10.04 the question would be about "Do I want to use it?" and not "Is it true that its impossible for me to use?" I might not like Roles, for instance, but they do provide a viable option to tracks. X has to live down a whole half year of people screaming "I can't even use it if I wanted to! How am I supposed to make stems!", and "I can't even monitor the dang thing."

[Walter Soyka]"I think one thing that hasn't changed since last June is that a lot of people are still making up their minds about FCPX without really using it"

Incredibly true statement. I occasionally teach editing at a college and last year we taught FCP7. This year we're teaching Avid because you have to train students on what's being used. However, I talked the head of the dept. into doing a few FCPX seminars for people who want to learn.

Anyway, I was talking to one of my students about it, and he just went off on FCPX. He was saying basically, no one's using it, right? I heard it sucked. If no ones using it, it probably isn't worth learning.

And this was from a kid who's probably been editing on FCP7 since high school. He's never downloaded X, never played with it, but since he's always online, he's heard about it and de facto made up his mind on it.

I had to talk with him for 15 minutes explaining that he should look into it, that it's much better than he's heard.

I figure X needs about 4 years to start making a dent in post facilities again. Judging by the update path, it could be a quality high-end NLE at the end of year 2, but the stigma will last longer than that.

[Andy Neil]"be a quality high-end NLE at the end of year 2, but the stigma will last longer than that.
"

I have to disagree with the end of this.

The "stigma" will last precisely until somebody does something different enough and cool enough with it and that supplants the old meme.

This is the modern era.

Short attention span theater land.

Things are cool until they aren't. And what wasn't can become cool again in a few days.

Ultimately, what becomes cools are things that satisfy people.

If X on a MacBook Pro satisfies an editor who wants to cut their extreme skiing GoPro clips from fireside at the chalet - and comes to understand that with proper planning, they can turn out a killer promo video for their boss and upload it to the web between drinks - then game over.

None of what any of us says will really matter if the tool solves real problems for real users. Even if those problems aren't the same ones you and I have.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"This is the modern era.
Short attention span theater land.
Things are cool until they aren't. And what wasn't can become cool again in a few days."

For an editor working in isolation this may be true. For editors who are part of larger post workflows that require planning and collaborations over longer periods, real money can be wasted by short attention span planning around cool products.

I know you love the freedom to roam and edit paradigm Bill but for many this is still a question of how to get the feisty colt into the barn and harnessed to a team.

[Michael Gissing]"For an editor working in isolation this may be true. For editors who are part of larger post workflows that require planning and collaborations over longer periods, real money can be wasted by short attention span planning around cool products.

I know you love the freedom to roam and edit paradigm Bill but for many this is still a question of how to get the feisty colt into the barn and harnessed to a team."

And, I'v been roaming with FCS for the last five years. I've taken my work on all manner of vacation, and on afternoon getaways. Its not like X is somehow mobile and other NLEs are not. That'a a fallacy.

[Chris Harlan]"And, I'v been roaming with FCS for the last five years. I've taken my work on all manner of vacation, and on afternoon getaways. Its not like X is somehow mobile and other NLEs are not. That'a a fallacy.
"

At the risk of brushing agains the "beating a dead horse" thing...

Chris, nobody every said that you can't edit on the road with Legacy. People do it all the time.

But if you don't understand the qualitative difference between X and Legacy as a mobile editing platform, then you're NEVER going to get this point.

Legacy on a laptop, cut off from the "home base" assets of network and storage was an exercise in diminished capacity. X on a laptop is EXACTLY the same as X on a desktop. It's a seamless experience.

If you haven't used X enough to experience that, then please don't keep coming back to the "mobile editing was "possible" in Legacy."

It's also possible to drag race with a Volkswagen. But few do that seriously. It's a very, poor tool for that purpose, while X is an absolutely superb tool for mobile editing - perhaps the finest out there from what I've both experienced and heard.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"But if you don't understand the qualitative difference between X and Legacy as a mobile editing platform, then you're NEVER going to get this point.
"

And, maybe there is no point there. No, wait. Not maybe. There is no point there.

[Bill Davis]"Legacy on a laptop, cut off from the "home base" assets of network and storage was an exercise in diminished capacity. X on a laptop is EXACTLY the same as X on a desktop. It's a seamless experience.
"

Mumbo jumbo. I can carry around four TBs or more and often do. 2 TBs easily accommodates a full season of an American TV drama. The home base easily comes with you if you want it. There is nothing about mobility that X has over FCS. Nothing. Nada. If FCS experiences any diminished capacity on a laptop, it is only diminished to the level of X.

[Bill Davis]"If you haven't used X enough to experience that, then please don't keep coming back to the "mobile editing was "possible" in Legacy."
"

Stop hiding behind "If you haven't been there... ...you just can't understand." The same argument can be made about Heroin. Give me something concrete. I bet you can't find it.

[Bill Davis]"It's also possible to drag race with a Volkswagen. But few do that seriously."

I so agree. Which is why I'm impressed with your tenacity in continuing to try it.

[Bill Davis]"It's a very, poor tool for that purpose, while X is an absolutely superb tool for mobile editing - perhaps the finest out there from what I've both experienced and heard.
"

That is ridiculous. I've been comfortably editing ProResHQ @1080 on a Macbook Pro for years now. It isn't sloggy. It isn't slow. To say that it is a "very poor tool" is an assertion that I can personally and very vehemently deny. So give me a couple of real life examples of why one is a poor tool and the other is superb.

When I use X on my laptop - every single edit decision I've made previously in my event brewer - no matter which events or projects those were created for - can be instantly available to every single project I choose to create from that point on - with all my pre-edit decisions as to trimming, color correction and key wording intact.

That capability didn't exist in Legacy that I ever uncovered.

The X approach is infinitely more flexible and clearly superior in my view.

And when you're out on the road with Legacy, how exactly do you handle Capture Scratch management? I don't recall a way to have a dozen projects with a dozen capture scratches associated with those projects live simultaneously - the default state of X with multiple Events available along side multiple projects as the default.

I can be editing away on one Project, realize I need footage from another project, or another event, mount a drive, and edit the new material into my timeline in seconds. No launching prior projects, no shut down and re-launching FCP legacy edits.

In fact, in Legacy I couldn't even SEE the contents of a timeline when I had another one launched! I could open an exported MOVIE - but that give me NO reference to the original timeline since movies and their parent timelines were always cut off from each other. I remember spending lots to time looking for clips by opening and closing FCP-Legacy projects until I could find the one that had the clip I was looking for if I couldn't remember the ID tag I'd used and wanted a visual reference.

Legacy had no visual reference other than shuffling through bins and scanning thumbnails for the open project ONLY.

Former projets were just "dumb icons" on the desktop. Unless you create and maintain some kind of clip database outside the program, each edit defaulted to a "closed book" state.

In X, all your prior work can be open and available for visual search with a few clicks - all from within the live app.

I could go on, but those are a few of the important things off the top of my head.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with mobility, but since you took the time to write all this interesting stuff out, I'll definitely take the time to reply.

[Bill Davis]"When I use X on my laptop - every single edit decision I've made previously in my event brewer - no matter which events or projects those were created for - can be instantly available to every single project I choose to create from that point on - with all my pre-edit decisions as to trimming, color correction and key wording intact.

That capability didn't exist in Legacy that I ever uncovered.

The X approach is infinitely more flexible and clearly superior in my view."

I can see how this might be useful for some folks, but it would drive me crazy. I would pay not to have that feature. I only want to have open projects that I'm working, and most definitely NOT everything I've ever done. If I need to have several projects open at the same time, great, but NOT as a default.

[Bill Davis]"And when you're out on the road with Legacy, how exactly do you handle Capture Scratch management? I don't recall a way to have a dozen projects with a dozen capture scratches associated with those projects live simultaneously - the default state of X with multiple Events available along side multiple projects as the default.
"

I really have no idea what you mean by "Capture Scratch management." Its just a folder. You can have plenty of folders open. I've been completely tapeless for two years now, and mostly tapeless for the two years before that. I use folders. My projects can get quite large and encompass many, many folders. I can have them all open. I can open folders from other projects. Defaulting to all projects open is a nightmare as far as I'm concerned. It is SO not an advantage. I can see, again, how it could be very useful for some lines of work, but I assure there are others that it is NOT a very good idea for.

[Bill Davis]"I can be editing away on one Project, realize I need footage from another project, or another event, mount a drive, and edit the new material into my timeline in seconds. No launching prior projects, no shut down and re-launching FCP legacy edits. "

Why do you think I can't do this in FCS? I can mount a drive and import whole folders or individual items without having to launch a project. I can easily preview whatever I'm looking for by using the OS X browser and then just drag the file to a bin. I do a lot of sfx this way. And I can certainly open an additional project or five without having to shut down or relaunch.

[Bill Davis]"In fact, in Legacy I couldn't even SEE the contents of a timeline when I had another one launched! I could open an exported MOVIE - but that give me NO reference to the original timeline since movies and their parent timelines were always cut off from each other. "

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. FCS allows multiple timelines to be open, whereas x does not. This something I miss quite a bit in all other NLEs. Its one of those area where FCS maintains superiority. Perhaps you mean you cannot preview a timeline in a bin. That's true. And a little scrub device would be nice, but it really isn't that big a deal to click and see what's in the timeline. I would take multiple open timelines over some sort of bin preview any day. But, that's me.

[Bill Davis]" I remember spending lots to time looking for clips by opening and closing FCP-Legacy projects until I could find the one that had the clip I was looking for if I couldn't remember the ID tag I'd used and wanted a visual reference.
"

Again, OS X provides a pretty decent preview feature these days. And, again--I do not want all my projects open at the same time. I get that this is a viable selling point for you, but it would be a royal PItA for me.

[Bill Davis]"Legacy had no visual reference other than shuffling through bins and scanning thumbnails for the open project ONLY.

Former projets were just "dumb icons" on the desktop. Unless you create and maintain some kind of clip database outside the program, each edit defaulted to a "closed book" state."

Yeah, its showing it age a little bit. I like the kind of preview features available in Pr 6, which thankfully allows me not to have everything open.

[Bill Davis]"In X, all your prior work can be open and available for visual search with a few clicks - all from within the live app.
"

And again, thank God that it is the only NLE that has gone there.

Bill, I found this conversation very interesting because it has really helped me see why you like X so much. I can see how its organization can be very attractive. I can even see why--from your POV--you might think of it as being more mobile, because I see that for you it acts as a work suitcase/filing cabinet, combined with an artist's pallet. So, I get what you are saying. But, there are a lot of other ways of looking at mobility, and claiming it as the sole property of FCP X is just not something I can agree with.

[Chris Harlan]"Bill, I found this conversation very interesting because it has really helped me see why you like X so much. I can see how its organization can be very attractive. I can even see why--from your POV--you might think of it as being more mobile, because I see that for you it acts as a work suitcase/filing cabinet, combined with an artist's pallet. So, I get what you are saying. But, there are a lot of other ways of looking at mobility, and claiming it as the sole property of FCP X is just not something I can agree with."

Chris,

Thank you. I appreciate both the tone and the points you've made. And you made them without attaching them to personal attacks. I appreciate that.

I will only add a small point of clarification to something you mentioned that I think might confuse others.

In the X Event Browser and the Project Library - you are never "forced" to have all your assets or projects "open" by default. In the Event Browser, you hide or reveal the event you're interested in by clicking on it, and in the display window, you can close or open events in the viewer just as easily. Essentially they are all "live and on-line" all the time - but the user controls the display of them.

I believe this is a fundamental feature of the way X sees everything as metadata. Since somewhat unlike Legacy, it isn't built on a code base that has to "load" complex code subroutines to perform it's functions, there's little penalty for access to all of it's interior assets.

It works the same way in the Project Library. Projects can be put in virtual folders and revealed or concealed from the user at will. These project folders are user named, so you can be as overt (Acme Projects) or obscure (101-5324) as you like.

But my larger point, actually is that I appreciate the discussion and your willingness to keep things from being personal. Thats good for the board since I increasingly think that the debate on FCP-X functions and features is the "signal" here - and the expressions of anger or hurt about the program, while surely entertaining for the lurkers - is not much more than "noise" at this point.

Nice Post - thank you.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"Thats good for the board since I increasingly think that the debate on FCP-X functions and features is the "signal" here - and the expressions of anger or hurt about the program, while surely entertaining for the lurkers - is not much more than "noise" at this point.
"

[Chris Harlan]"[Bill Davis] "Thats good for the board since I increasingly think that the debate on FCP-X functions and features is the "signal" here - and the expressions of anger or hurt about the program, while surely entertaining for the lurkers - is not much more than "noise" at this point.
"

Yeah, but then Tim is going to stop paying us the big bucks."

Ha! You're lucky I don't lay you all off.

See, I don't think that "hurt" is noise. I think it's part of what has become one of the many NEW signals here: trying to figure out which way the big ball is going to bounce. As others have noted, feelings have ALWAYS factored into this. Dramatically changing feelings about the company people FELT most strongly about? Signal. It WILL affect the future of the industry and the people in it. It already has.

And frankly, losing faith in Apple, even if for emotional reasons, becomes a rational consideration. Dig:

You have a finite amount of time and money. You take a piece of yellow legal paper (IT HAS TO BE YELLOW OR IT DOESN'T COUNT), draw a line down the middle, make a list on each side, and "I just don't like those f*ckers anymore" HAS to factor in. It would be IRrational to give money to people you don't like or trust.

The only thing that I personally assess as noise here is pointedly personal stuff, but even that is being dealt with far better than this time last year. A post or two and move on, rather than consuming whole threads...or whole days....

Otherwise, the more signals the merrier.

PS. My usual caveat: speaking empathetically about one side of the argument doesn't reduce my empathy for yay-sayers, and indeed my belief that they represent a majority view. I'm just talking about what constitutes signal and noise. There is no arena of science or technology that doesn't have a strong emotional component.

[Tim Wilson]"The only thing that I personally assess as noise here is pointedly personal stuff, but even that is being dealt with far better than this time last year. A post or two and move on, rather than consuming whole threads...or whole days....
"

So that means that my suggestion for the new forum name of "50 Romantic Things You Can Do To Your Opponent's Skull" is just completely out of the running?

[Bill Davis]"I believe this is a fundamental feature of the way X sees everything as metadata. Since somewhat unlike Legacy, it isn't built on a code base that has to "load" complex code subroutines to perform it's functions, there's little penalty for access to all of it's interior assets.

It works the same way in the Project Library. Projects can be put in virtual folders and revealed or concealed from the user at will. These project folders are user named, so you can be as overt (Acme Projects) or obscure (101-5324) as you like.
"

I know I sound like a broken record, I apologize.

For those of you lucky to have SANs that work with FCPX, you will be able to see just what SAN Locations can do to help manage media in FCPX. It works sort of like Event Manager X, but it has greater capability, is built in, and allows you to place media in any directory at any level of your SAN. All you have to do is mount/dismount ("add/remove") and you don't even have to quit FCPX to do it.

Whey they don't have this capability built in to local access, ya got me, but there's some sort of hint as to why this is built in to a SAN architecture and not the "local" architecture. Someone must be thinking ahead, even though the present is murky.

Yes, FCPX has had a rough start, but then you look at what is already in there that is beyond anything that is currently available in an "out of the box" NLE today. This is why I stick around. The cosmetics can, will, and already are changing.

The media management in FCPX is pretty good. It could be even better, but for 1 year old, it's doing pretty well and you can see where Apple focused their initial energies in to this platform. There's still a lot more "backend" work in the form of XML and probably with AVFoundation to get better hooks in to capture/export cards, but I bet all that's coming as well. It's not like FCPXML has remained stagnant since it's inception in 10.0.2, and broadcast monitoring came once AVFoundation seemed to be beefed up with an OS update.

As long as everyone has the same media, sharing Projects and Events is fairly easy as well. The nice thing about the FCPX structure is that you simply add the proper file in the proper place, and X pretty much does the rest.

Then there's the sharing of media and referencing of media in Events.

This is all new stuff, and it's different than other NLEs, and seems to lend itself to larger workgroups.

I suppose perhaps there's a need for iMovie workgroups, but I suppose there is or will be larger professional workgroups as well that will use FCPX.

So, while FCPX seems to have one man band written all over it for now, from my perspective, it doesn't seem that it was conceived in that light.

[Michael Gissing]"I know you love the freedom to roam and edit paradigm Bill but for many this is still a question of how to get the feisty colt into the barn and harnessed to a team.
"

No question.

But I think you mistake my thinking.

You see, while I initially saw X as a tools to "replace Legacy" - that didn't last very long for me.

The more I used it, the more it became clear that it's a new kind of tool. And the dumbest thing I could continue to do was try to use the new tool the same way I used the old one.

So I had to stop and re-think a lot of what I used to think about when I edited. Not all. A cut is still a cut. But now my thinking process has expanded. (yes, that may be because my thinking process was immature or not as sophisticated as others here) but that aside, it was my process developed over 10 years plus of cutting stuff month after month.

While part of what changed my editing process was the introduction of X, looking back, I'm not sure it was the software that changed things so much as changes in technology as a whole changing the modern world - and the software team at Apple being smart enough to see the writing on the wall ahead of most other companies.

I don't scout locations the same way I did 10 years ago, I don't shoot the same way I did 10 years ago. I don't capture my audio the same way I did 10 years ago. I don't plan or think or write the same way I did 10 years ago.

So why should I still EDIT the same way I did 10 years ago?

If you're answer is "because it works for me." Great. You've never read a single line from me here saying that the way anyone else edits isn't perfectly legitimate.

But I still content that most of the people who "hate" X, seem to me to be largely driven by frustrations based around how it's "forcing" them consider changing away from a work style and habits they've been comfortable with for a decade. I get that. But I guess as old as I am, I"m just not particularly resistant to change. It seems to me to be progressive change that's brining new thinking and new capabilities. Not change that's still trying to cling to the ways I used to work, in a world where everything else IS changing.

I don't actually see X as something to "replace" Legacy, but I'm convinced that many here can't see it, nor judge it, as anything else.

To me it's as silly as an argument about which are more fun, skis or snowboards.

Just go out and have fun. There's plenty of room on the slopes for everyone.

Simple as that.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis] "But I still content that most of the people who "hate" X, seem to me to be largely driven by frustrations based around how it's "forcing" them consider changing away from a work style and habits they've been comfortable with for a decade. I get that. But I guess as old as I am, I"m just not particularly resistant to change. It seems to me to be progressive change that's brining new thinking and new capabilities. Not change that's still trying to cling to the ways I used to work, in a world where everything else IS changing."

A constant in your thinking Bill and whilst commendable at one level it missed my point entirely. There is a very large network of people at all levels of post who day in day out have to work as a team. EOL of 7 and island X has made that harder.

When change breaks workflows, then it is sensible to question whether the change is in fact an improvement or just different and alienating. Whilst you have been able to embrace the change and see advantage to you it doesn't alter the fact that many are seriously questioning whether there is an overall advantage to trying to shoehorn X into established workflows, which they must do.

It has nothing to do with an ability to see future trends or be innovative. So when I say it is necessary to get X integrated into existing workflows, it is far from being trapped into old thinking or not wanting to embrace change. The fundamental issue here is where is the advantage for many to embrace a change that is yet to show an innate superiority. Is it a better way to edit for many or just a few? Lots of editors have indicated to me that they remain unconvinced but certainly not close minded.

Please don't confuse their combined reticence as a failure to embrace change. It just isn't in spite of your constant harping that it must be the reason.

[Michael Gissing]"Please don't confuse their combined reticence as a failure to embrace change. It just isn't in spite of your constant harping that it must be the reason.
"

Then let me be specific.

I do NOT believe that editors who don't like X are in any way "resistant to change." Far from it. In order to be a modern editor of any quality, the singular attribute I've witnessed is curiosity and agility of mind.

You can't do the work without those qualities. So I'm NOT dissing editors who don't like X.

I'm arguing that the pace of overall technological change in society is so rapid and so pervasive, that it's simply too easy to overlook wider forces that might be harbingers of change that will affect our industry like they are affecting all others.

My "harping" as you put it, is a reaction to the many, many people who show up here (like the post that started this thread) that PRESUME that the change to X was some kind of disaster and can only be seen as such.

I think that's rubbish.

It's only a "disaster" if it didn't work for a particular editor.

And I firmly believe that MOST editors fall outside the class for whom it's fatally flawed.

NOT most professional "seat in a post house" editors. For that class, it's a major issue, and I've acknowledged that many times here.

It's probably a "world view" thing - similar to the recent stories about how self-described republicans and democrats look at the same facts and come to startlingly different, and mutually inconsistent conclusions.

If ones "world view" is that editing is what happens in a Seat at Bunim Murray - then X can easily be seen as a big step backwards compared to Legacy.

If one's "world view", however, is that editing is how you get your vision in front of the largest possible audience regardless of the fact that you don't have a 100-seat post house at your disposal, it might be the finest editing tool the world has ever seen.

BOTH these subjective views can be argued against intelligently - and that's the whole point.

I argue most often for the "non facility" view, in part because the former views is extremely well represented here and that's where most of my personal experience is.

I'm not employed in a big shop. And X has been a great tool for me and is getting better month by month.

I'm admittedly 'invested" in it's success for very personal reasons. I want to see it grow and succeed because it's working really, really well for me.

So I feel it's appropriate to push back when I read something that besmirches it from someone who doesn't actually USE it on a day to day basis, as I do.

It's a great and very unique editing tool. It's not prefect. It's not for everyone. But it's excellent editing software for most editing purposes right now.

That's the truth of it.

And it's a truth I'm willing to stand up for.

Nothing more than that.

If I get passionately "heavy handed" in my arguments, everyone here must expect some of that from me by now. And at least I'm consistent! ; )

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis] "If I get passionately "heavy handed" in my arguments, everyone here must expect some of that from me by now. And at least I'm consistent! ; )"

Indeed but when you say
"But I still content that most of the people who "hate" X, seem to me to be largely driven by frustrations based around how it's "forcing" them consider changing away from a work style and habits they've been comfortable with for a decade.",
then expect me and other to call you for it. It isn't true in my experience or many others but you repeat it without foundation.

Bill I was calling you on both your claim that there are haters and the majority of haters hate change. I think that is just bullshit. So why are you now asking me to say why there are haters and what doesn't work for me. I covered all the issues of why it doesn't suit my grade/online sound post workflow when Alan asked me many posts ago.

I think it suits you to assume anyone who says it isn't for them or doesn't fit workflows is automatically a hater. That is fallacy number one.

Fallacy number two is that people hate because they can't deal with change.

As long as you continue to peddle this myth, expect me to call bullshit.

[Michael Gissing]"As long as you continue to peddle this myth, expect me to call bullshit."

Peddle?

Huh?

I thought this was a discussion. I'm not here to "peddle" anything. And certainly not myths. I write about my reality. X is not a myth. My work with it is not a myth. That people have been "angry" about X is certainly not a myth.

You clearly find it to be another reason to try to vent. Venting is what happens when people use terms like the very last one in your post above.

I attempted to extract your thinking about where you see fatal flaws in X so that people here can learn.

You don't want to discuss that, fine.

Moving on.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

Bill Davis My "harping" as you put it, is a reaction to the many, many people who show up here (like the post that started this thread) that PRESUME that the change to X was some kind of disaster and can only be seen as such.

Actually I never FPCX itself was a disaster in the original post. I said the publicity surrounding the release was a disaster. I don't think there is any question of that. Just google the reviews of the time. Watch the Conan O'Brien clip. Frankly, all the negative reaction following the initial release still taints the product IMO. There are plenty of folk that won't even give FCPX a chance because the label "non-professional" (deserved or not) has stuck.

I have to admit, your screenshot is intriguing. I would like to see the video it produced. I am curious how you would deal with multiple layers of audio on top of it. I have played around with FCPX very little on a friend's system and found the magnetic timeline very vexing. Although that was many months ago

As I have said before, I have little time to really play around and learn a new NLE. Unlike many on here, video editing isn't my primary job, but only one part of the process. My skills in FCP comes through years of use and I am loath to throw that away to begin anew in FCPX. I did get the Adobe Production package when it was on sale, but that was as much to get AfterEffects as Premiere Pro. And I have to say it is AE that I have devoted my time to learn rather than PPRO. I have stuck with FC7 because it still works for me. Time is a premium.

Just out of curiosity, how much time would you say it takes in FCPX to learn it well? How many months would one have to spend?

[Clint Wardlow]"I have played around with FCPX very little on a friend's system and found the magnetic timeline very vexing. Although that was many months ago"

It hasn't changed much. It's still magnetic. I wouldn't expect all of the magnetism to go away, but I'd expect some interface capability "upgrades". It's early days yet.

[Clint Wardlow]"As I have said before, I have little time to really play around and learn a new NLE. Unlike many on here, video editing isn't my primary job, but only one part of the process. My skills in FCP comes through years of use and I am loath to throw that away to begin anew in FCPX. I did get the Adobe Production package when it was on sale, but that was as much to get AfterEffects as Premiere Pro. And I have to say it is AE that I have devoted my time to learn rather than PPRO. I have stuck with FC7 because it still works for me. Time is a premium."

It's a personal preference. I've edited in FCP Legend for many years now. I would not say that learning any new NLE means throwing away what you've learned. I certainly am not throwing away any knowledge that I bring to X when editing. I guess I am intrigued by what you mean "experimental". It could mean a lot. It could mean a little. It could mean precise, it could mean abstract.

Ae is awesome. Some might say it has a steep learning curve. It is also very mature, and there's tons and tons of interweb "trainers". If you're looking for audio, Ae isn't the place, but it does hook in to Pr pretty well which will get you better audio control. Pr's audio is different yet again from FCP Legend's audio. No matter what, you will have to learn unless you stick with fcs3. And that's viable. It's what our shop is doing for now. It still works.

Are you looking to take freelance work at other facilities? What is it about perception that is motivating you?

If editing is only a simple part of your daily tasks, are you looking for a place to make an "investment" in money, or are you just looking on where you think others might invest their time?

When learning fcs3, did you have help, or did you teach yourself?

Are your only requirements to experiment, or do you have other technical requirements?

[Jeremy Garchow]" I guess I am intrigued by what you mean "experimental". It could mean a lot. It could mean a little. It could mean precise, it could mean abstract."

By experimental, I mean a lot of the stuff I do is not traditional linear narrative. I use image and sound produce emotional effects. I do this in many ways. Sometimes it is "precise" sometimes it is "freeflowing." It depends on what I am going for. A lot is determined by the medium I plan to present the work. I would create something different say for a projection at an art installation than a showing in a "theatre" (often just a room with folding chairs and a video projector." That is not to say I just do "moving pictures and noise." Sometimes I will produce a more linear storyline. It just depends what strikes my fevered fancy at the time.

[Jeremy Garchow]"Ae is awesome. Some might say it has a steep learning curve. It is also very mature, and there's tons and tons of interweb "trainers". If you're looking for audio, Ae isn't the place, but it does hook in to Pr pretty well which will get you better audio control. Pr's audio is different yet again from FCP Legend's audio. No matter what, you will have to learn unless you stick with fcs3. And that's viable. It's what our shop is doing for now. It still works."

I am not looking at audio in AE. I'm just trying to up my effects capabilities. I have used Motion since it came out and it whetted my appetite. Although, AE is pretty deep and I have barely scratched the surface. I find it oddly familiar from all the years I have spent with photoshop.

[Jeremy Garchow]"Are you looking to take freelance work at other facilities? What is it about perception that is motivating you?

If editing is only a simple part of your daily tasks, are you looking for a place to make an "investment" in money, or are you just looking on where you think others might invest their time?

When learning fcs3, did you have help, or did you teach yourself?

Are your only requirements to experiment, or do you have other technical requirements?"

This where I am different from most of the folks on here (and one of the reasons I come to the site, is to search around for the collective knowledge gathered here). I'm not really looking to work for hire. I consider myself an artist, and video & films is only one of the mediums I use (I'm sure the unkind among you would call me a hobbyist). I generally just want to create my own works, but will also provide my skills to other artists projects if they interest me. I make very little money doing this.

Consequently this gives me a great deal of freedom because I don't have to satisfy a clients needs or perceptions. On the downside, every time I add a new piece of gear it is an expense I might never recoup. That's why I look very carefully at any new product before I commit. (I am currently drooling over the Blackmagic Cinema Camera, but will definitely wait till others have tested the waters, used it, and discovered its strengths and weaknesses before I purchase.)

So, I'm not saying FCPX is out forever. A new NLE is not my highest priority at the moment. But one of the reasons I initiated this thread was to get input beyond the initial bad publicity of its release in June. Most of the film folks I know in my circle still have a negative view and I was looking for a broader perspective.

Oh, and my only technical requirement for anything (I shoot with vhs, 16mm, betacam, pixelvision, super8, dv, hdv, and a dslr) is that I can produce something cool. I am pretty much self taught in NLE editing, but did have training at the University of Utah in film theory. My editing classes involved a 16mm flatbed. And I did take a couple of adjunct classes when I first embraced video in and had to learn to cut on a tape-based linear editing system.

I think that you would be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't look around.

I think the needs of most of the people here vary differently.

If you aren't locked to one way of working, or to one style of working, I would look at everything, no matter what the perception is.

The "film folks" you know, might have different needs, and therefore have different perceptions.

If you can throw out the perception, and throw out what FCPX can't do (like capture from tape), or Ae can't do, or any other content creation software, and look what it CAN do, and where it's strengths are, I think that's all you, personally, will need. Who cares what anyone else thinks? If you can get you projects done in a cost efficient and creative way, that's all that really matters, right?

You obviously need some sort of video capture device as well. Right now, the jury is still out on Pr CS6. I haven't seen drivers from AJA yet, so I have no idea how and when that will work. FCPX only works from certain firewire based tape capture. So either way, you might need a stand alone capture software, and if you have an io device, they all have free capture utilities.

Compositing and effects are capabilities that reside within FCPX, just like they are in Pr and Ae. It won't feel like Photoshop. I work in Ae fairly frequently, and every time I go to Photoshop, I have trouble. Ae is just makes so much more sense to me. I think they work very differently, even if they both share a levels filter and have a mask tool. Photoshop's weird non-direct manipulation I find unintuitive as compared to Ae, let alone the key framing which is much easier in Ae.

If you understand layers/composite modes, and understand FCP7s "well" system, I am sure you will be fine poking around in FCPX if you're interested. There's also scrubbable/renderless effects previews, which if you put down the FCPX stigma, are pretty rad if you ask me.

If FCP7 is working for you, you can always stick there. It still works in Lion, it sill works on modern Apple machines, and older Apple machines, and it won't cost you anything in time or money.

[Jeremy Garchow]"You obviously need some sort of video capture device as well. Right now, the jury is still out on Pr CS6. I haven't seen drivers from AJA yet, so I have no idea how and when that will work. FCPX only works from certain firewire based tape capture. So either way, you might need a stand alone capture software, and if you have an io device, they all have free capture utilities"

Tape capture is the least of my worries. Though it probably would horrify many here, I transfer all analog video via my HDR-FX1 to DV, wrap it in Prores so it plays nice. I know this is not optimum in a lot of ways, but it works for me. And as the HDR-FX1 connects to the computer via firewire I don't think that would be a problem in FCPX. For film, I send that to a specilty house in Texas that does a telecine transfer to Prores 422 (costly, but they do a good job).

I guess my biggest issue with FCPX is the magnetic timeline and its primary storyline structure. If I want to use audio (and not nessesarily just one audio track) to develope the rythym of the cut it seems difficult at best and envolves bizarre workarounds. Maybe that has changed a bit, but was a big issue. The new plugin solved my other big issue (being able to import legacy).

Frankly what others think of my methods doesn't worry me. You should see one of my shoots (wheelchairs & kiddy wagons as dollies, any kind of light that gives me the look I want, and a the possibility of a varity of cameras from JVC VHS, a refurbished pixelvision camera, an ancient sony betacam, a Beaulieu 4008 super8, etc, etc). Most pros would have a heart attack (and often do go out of their way to tell me everything I am doing wrong when they visit one of my sets....sigh).

It is just when I tried FCPX it didn't feel right for me. The wierd thing is whenever I suggest it to others who I feel would benefit from its use, I get a lot of resistence. So I started this thread more out of curiosity to see if the negative perception had changed on a wider level among professional editors. After perusing all of the comments I'm still not sure because in someways it turned into the usual pro and con argument (though to be fair many did address the issue of perception).

[Clint Wardlow]"Frankly what others think of my methods doesn't worry me. You should see one of my shoots (wheelchairs & kiddy wagons as dollies, any kind of light that gives me the look I want, and a the possibility of a varity of cameras from JVC VHS, a refurbished pixelvision camera, an ancient sony betacam, a Beaulieu 4008 super8, etc, etc). Most pros would have a heart attack (and often do go out of their way to tell me everything I am doing wrong when they visit one of my sets....sigh). "

This applies to an NLE as well.

If FCPX doesn't feel right to you, then really that's all that matters.

If you look around, you'll find people having success with it, but it might not fit your style or situation.

[Bill Davis]"The "stigma" will last precisely until somebody does something different enough and cool enough with it and that supplants the old meme."

[Bill Davis]"If X on a MacBook Pro satisfies an editor who wants to cut their extreme skiing GoPro clips from fireside at the chalet - and comes to understand that with proper planning, they can turn out a killer promo video for their boss and upload it to the web between drinks - then game over."

I think you're overstating it a bit. My stigma comment wasn't tied to whether or not an individual finds it useful for their work. I was speaking specifically for post facilities who buy hundreds of seats and do the bulk of TV and film editing. FCP7 has a pretty significant presence in post here in LA. Shops like Bunim-Murray have already moved away from it and in all the other FCP shops that I've been to and talked with, they have been vacillating on where they might go, but most aren't even considering FCPX as a possibility. Even if they don't plan on upgrading for a year or so. And why is that? The most common answer I get is that they don't know where FCPX is headed (fair enough), but there is also a distrust of Apple. No facility's manager wants to commit to FCPX only to have Apple pull the rug out from under them again.

Now these opinions are not my own. I'm a pretty big supporter of the current FCPX, and I'm confident that it's updates are heading in the right direction. But I also don't have a hundred seats to consider. Nor do I have post shop owners who hold the purse strings asking me to justify why their company should continue with Apple after they just EOL'd their entire facility. This is the stigma to which I'm referring. This will take more time than a year to blow over.

As Shane mentioned, FCPX (despite the name) cannot build upon the reputation of FCP7. No one who is in the position of purchasing equipment and software for an entire building is thinking of X as an upgrade from 7. That's just the way it is.

I like X. I think it's great and I have more fun editing on it than on Avid, or FCP7 or Premiere. In another year, it's going to be solid. In 2 more, I suspect it'll be one of the best out there. But it'll take at least that long to get post houses who've listened to all the criticism to even consider it. Aside from the outliers of course who are working closely with Apple right now.

It's too bad. The show I'm working on right now could really benefit from it.

[Andy Neil]" I was speaking specifically for post facilities who buy hundreds of seats and do the bulk of TV and film editing. FCP7 has a pretty significant presence in post here in LA. Shops like Bunim-Murray have already moved away from it and in all the other FCP shops that I've been to and talked with, they have been vacillating on where they might go, but most aren't even considering FCPX as a possibility."

I saw the Bunim-Murray story here too. But I'm not sure it's fair to say "shops like" B/M. Do you know for a fact that other similar major producers have made the same switch?

Perhaps they're out there and I'm ignorant of them. But I haven't seen a flood of stories about how all the hollywood post is massively moving to Premier or Avid or anything else.

Also, from what I read, B/M was pretty much a specific type of post house dealing primarily with modern reality television production and were expanding incredibly fast with the wave of reality (not sure what noun to use here since I like some of the reality genre and loath other aspects of it!) programming.

I haven't seen a whole lot of stories where there's a massive shift in any particular direction in the wider Post industry.

We know that Leverage is pioneering with X. B/M reality work has left Legacy behind. But I'd be interested in what's happening with modern "bread and butter" narrative programming.

What's ABC's "Castle" doing? How about the USA shows like Royal Pains and Covert Affairs?

I suspect it's still largely an AVID world in these places, based on the fact that the biggest shops that have been around a long time likely have mature AVID infrastructures in place.

When and/or if these start shifting, it will be important.

Right now, not so much, I'd suppose.

The truth is, that while Cold Mountain on FCP was a jolt to the industry, at that point, I'd already had five solid years of FCP-Legacy editing behind me.

Nobody knows where X will be at that point. Nor do we know where AVID or Premier will be.

That's just the way it is.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]" saw the Bunim-Murray story here too. But I'm not sure it's fair to say "shops like" B/M. Do you know for a fact that other similar major producers have made the same switch?"

Bill, did you read my post? I didn't say other facilities have switched. I said other facilities where I've worked and have TALKED to, have indicated that FCPX is not even on their radar.

In fact, most places haven't switched because most places aren't in the position that B/M was in. And I'm sorry, but citing Bunim-Murray is completely fair (if you were confused about my word choice, "like Bunim-Murray" was to mean "such as Bunim-Murray," not "similar to B/M")

I talked personally to Mark R. weeks before he announced where B/M was headed and I could tell which way he was leaning even then. I've had similar conversations with other post houses that I've worked in that are FCP shops and it goes the same. Most shrug their shoulders and say that they'll probably go to Avid. Not one has suggested that they'll even look at X as a possible replacement.

[Bill Davis]"Also, from what I read, B/M was pretty much a specific type of post house dealing primarily with modern reality television production and were expanding incredibly fast with the wave of reality (not sure what noun to use here since I like some of the reality genre and loath other aspects of it!) programming.

I haven't seen a whole lot of stories where there's a massive shift in any particular direction in the wider Post industry.
"

I find this section extremely funny. You make it sound like B/M is working in some niche market. Do you realize that there is more reality tv being produced than scripted tv? A lot more.

And the "wider post industry?" Well, technically that would be corporate and industrial and individual client based work, not ABC's Castle.

But the black eye that FCPX took when it was released was not given to it by a few disgruntled wedding videographers and a guy that makes internal corporate videos. The bad press was generated by TV show and film editors and facility's managers and business owners AND all those other people in the wider post industry.

I'm hoping to try and change the minds of the people I work with about FCPX, but it's slow going. Most of the people who have bitched to me about FCPX haven't even tried it. That's pretty much the definition of a stigma. We just disagree on how fast it'll go away.

[Andy Neil]"I'm hoping to try and change the minds of the people I work with about FCPX, but it's slow going. Most of the people who have bitched to me about FCPX haven't even tried it. That's pretty much the definition of a stigma. We just disagree on how fast it'll go away.
"

Ok,

Fair enough.

We'll leave it at that.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Andy Neil]"I'm hoping to try and change the minds of the people I work with about FCPX, but it's slow going. Most of the people who have bitched to me about FCPX haven't even tried it. That's pretty much the definition of a stigma. We just disagree on how fast it'll go away."

Waaayyy back in November of 2011, I did some Cow research on the release of the first FCP and what people we're saying back then, mostly in terms of cost, and any effect it might be having on Avid editors.

If you have the time, I suggest reading the post from the list of links. It gives us over a decade of perspective.

It is sometimes uncanny how cyclical this whole situation appears to be.

[Jeremy Garchow]"I did some Cow research on the release of the first FCP and what people we're saying back then, mostly in terms of cost, and any effect it might be having on Avid editors. If you have the time, I suggest reading the post from the list of links. It gives us over a decade of perspective. It is sometimes uncanny how cyclical this whole situation appears to be."

Great links. I encourage everyone to re-read them.

On the general topic, I think it's critical to remember that these products all evolve, and we need to be willing to re-evaluate them periodically.

When FCP v1 came out, some people said that it was the future, and other people said it wasn't as good as Avid. They were both right.

When Avid came out, some people said it was the future, and other people said it wasn't as good as a CMX. They were both right.

When the UVW-1800 came out, some people said it was the future, and other people said it wasn't as good as BVW-75. They were both right.

What we see today (or what we saw a year ago) might not be valid another year from now. I think most of us here believe this, and it's why we are still here.

[Mitch Ives]"Imagine how different FCPX would be treated if it had..."

I'm sorry man, but very nearly zero. The noise about monitoring, multicam and IO stopped fairly quickly...or not...but the heart of the matter for people for whom its not working hasn't changed one iota, and may NEVER change.

It has to do with interface, mindset, collaboration, and a jillion other things. You could actually work around nearly *feature* that was missing from X on its launch, and millions of people did.

Really, how many people bailed on X because it didn't have multicam or broadcast monitoring? Hardly any. How many have bailed because it broke their basic workflow? Bunches.

I can also point back to the launch event. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY was complaining during that first demo that there was no IO or multicam. Did Apple even mention that?

But go back to the very first threads in this forum -- fully a third of the posts being made DURING THE EVENT were full of abject horror. Some of those people came around, some people joined the horror camp....but the overwhelming majority of it had zeeeerooooo to do with bullet-point features, and everything to do with the bullet they felt had just been put in their heads, before they even KNEW about the missing features.

[Tim Wilson]"....but the overwhelming majority of it had zeeeerooooo to do with bullet-point features, and everything to do with the bullet they felt had just been put in their heads, before they even KNEW about the missing features."

I absolutely agree with this assessment.

The largest factor in the "horror" that surrounded the release of X was the emotional fallout.

To me the singular part of this assessment is the archly perceptive line "with the bullet they felt had just been put in their heads."

It speaks of primal fear, confusion and uncertainty. Which matter. But what a thing "is" and how you "feel" about that thing have always been two separate things.

That a guy "hates" or "loves" Chevys over Fords has always been a part of car culture. But seldom has much to do with the actual performance of the machines. It's mostly a complex and emotional thing.

And so it is with X to this day.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

Tim, I agree with your points about those that felt betrayed and didn't like the changes. I disagree with you about all the missing parts and bugs not being part of the problem... or at least aggravating the hell out of it..

I think there was a third (marginalized) category... people who wanted to remain objective and give FCPX the benefit of the doubt. How do you do that when the titler doesn't work? How do you do that when the auto save stops working and you lose changes, because there is no manual save. How do you do serious work without broadcast monitoring? How do you give up powerhouse features like Kona or Black Magic boards. Living without Multicam? Multicam is almost a given today with all the cheap DSLRs and Go Pro's out there. No the real question was: "how can they release something like this'?

IMO, all of these "two guys in a garage" mistakes gave fuel to the argument that this wasn't a serious tool. Unnecessary fuel I might add. For a lot of people 10.0.3 was the first usable release, and 10.0.4 is the first version I can use with any certainty. It's actually working rather well... finally!

No, I think Apple made a colossal blunder in releasing FCPX too early. But I think it's a function of something more insidious than whether you like the FCPX workflow. I think it's the new Apple under Tim Cook. He's a 'rush it out quicker guy" who brought us the failed iPhone 4 antenna. The botched initial release of Lion, and then the way too early release of FCPX.

I think time will tell, but want to bet that' we'll see more of this? The optimist in me would like to think the iPhone 4s is a good indicator that maybe they have learned from their mistakes and held the iPhone 5 until it's really ready... but I'm probably deluding myself.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill

My perception has certainly changed. The big question about it has gone from "Is it, or will it, ever be usable for the work I generally engage in?" to "Do I, or will I, ever want to use it?"

So now its much more about style and approach then it is about actual viability. The answer for me, currently, is that it offers me--personally--very little of value, and that its detriments far outweigh anything of value it does have. Much of that is taste, however, and I can easily imagine it being of great value to others. Over the next year, its going to be much more about taste, and also about what Apple will do about computers in general. Their silence on the Mac Pros has not helped them with FCP X at all, and one sizable selling point for both Adobe and Avid is that they have a platform exit strategy.

Another element is that Adobe has done an amazing job with Premiere in making it extremely accessible to FCP 7 editors. I felt at home after playing around with it for half an hour. It also has a lot of what I like about Avid. It's something that I can just start using, and then spend a few free hours, here and there, over the next few months on Lynda picking up on the hidden stuff. That's very enticing.

For many people - particularly those with entrenched workflows and who wish to continue to approach editing as they have traditionally, FCP-X will probably never be more than an incidental tool.

That's not the class of users it's most useful for, IMO.

It shines for those with flexibility and control of their work processes who want to explore new tools and don't need to fit their tools and habits into workflows that are too different from what they already know.

Which is fine. Anyone in those categories should simply stay with traditional editing tools.

That's not what X is. At least not for me.

X has pushed me into new thinking and new styles of work that I've never done before, precisely because the underlying design of it has made me re-assess what I can do with video as a tool.

X has actually made video production and editing fun for me again.

I fully acknowledge that I don't have a seat in a facility where someone else is telling me the kind of projects I can do and how I have to edit them. So it's an exciting new tool for me.

I personally think that "pros" will come back to X if and when they hear about something that it does that the competition doesn't do as efficiently or well.

It's first big "re-think" has been Multi-cam. And since I'm deep into that feature this month, I can say with some confidence that Apple has made this miles better than what I'd been used to previously. In that "Apple like' manner, it just seems to work pretty intuitively and very well.

If they do the same thing to other features as the code in X expands and improves, then they can attack subgroup audiences and incorporate them into the X fold.

I suspect it's gonna end up on the laptops of the X-games folks, in the locker rooms and court side for sports teams, cutting music performance videos like what I'm working on this week, in multi-part training videos, on-set for Madison Ave Commercial shoots, and a thousand other places where it's database/metadata approach will drive efficiencies into complex workflows
.

It may be a long time before it cuts it's "Cold Mountain". But the Hollywood post house is just one place among many where editing happens.

And X has to earn it's place in them one at a time.

With Apple behind it, I suspect it's going to do great.

In a nutshell, it can stand all the "heat" that comes at it from the "low information voters" (which is anyone in my opinion that hasn't cut on it for at least 6 months continuously, because it requires quite a bit of re-orientation to become as facile with it as most of us were with Legacy) but in the end, what's going to make the ultimate difference is that it's a reality good modern video editing system right now and it's getting constantly better.

Which is all that matters in the long run.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

My perception had changed. I no longer think its not pro and not capable of many things. In fact, the multicam feature is the best around.

It just employs an editing methodology I can't wrap my head around. And yes, I gave it a spin for a week, so I did more than kick tires.

It still doesn't do a lot of stuff I need doing. Capture non-FireWire tape formats inside the app (I'm on lining a show in FCP that is 85% stock footage on tape). Capturing tape outside the app doesn't fit the bill either, talking offline/online with tape. Something I still do quite often.

It's very capable and fulfills the needs of many. Not me. FCP Legacy is still my favorite editor, and I'm sad to see it go. CS6 and Avid can't make up for what I could do with FCP.

Will FCX get to the level of perception that FCP Legacy had? I don't think so. I don't see "Hollywood" adopting it like we did FCP. Even years from now. I just can't see using it myself. I'm not "forward thinking" enough. I'm still "stuck in the past" in using editing methodology that never seemed broken. Just confusing to a few people.

But who knows. The kids of today are using it, and they are the editors of tomorrow.

[Steve Connor]"[Shane Ross] "I gave it a spin for a week, so I did more than kick tires. "

In FCPX world using it for a week is actually just kicking the tyres"

I disagree, Steve. Using it for a week is taking it for a test drive, reading all the brochures, reading the reviews from consumer reports to Motor Trends. In short, it gives you plenty of time to figure out the things you may or may not like. You just shouldn't have to master something to decide if you like it or not.

I always had the outlook that if FCPX gets 'good enough' for what I need then I'll take another look at it (my first look being when it launched). Unfortunately one of my needs is that the program be adopted by companies doing projects (TV shows, documentaries, etc.,) that I want to work on. I'm sure someone will say that learning FCPX now will make me more ready when that day comes, but I wasn't in on v1 of Avid, AE, PS, FCP, FinalTouch/Color, etc., and that hasn't hindered my ability to get paid to work w/the those tools.

The way I'm looking at things now is any time I could spend tinkering w/FCPX is time I'm not spending getting my Avid chops back, digging deeper into AE or getting comfortable with Resolve. All of which will help me land my next gig where as knowing FCPX will not. I've actually seen a number of LA-centric job ads saying 'looking for FCP editor (not X)'.

Another need, which is probably more subjective, is that FCPX significantly improves my editing workflow and efficiency. I know the learning curve will be higher than picking up PPro, for example, but if it provides me w/a much better way of doing what I need to do then I'm down. I'm not interested in just doing things differently, but I am interested in doing things better.

[Andrew Kimery]" I know the learning curve will be higher than picking up PPro, for example, but if it provides me w/a much better way of doing what I need to do then I'm down. I'm not interested in just doing things differently, but I am interested in doing things better."

"I'm not interested in just doing things differently, but I am interested in doing things better."

Exactly. I see FCX does things differently. But I don't see them as better. In fact, a lot are big steps backwards. Dismissing tape (again, non-FireWire based) at this time is wrong. Trackless timelines make no sense and are just messy to me. Unorganized. Label it all you want (Roles), it's still a big mess.

Every bit of that week was a struggle. I just wasn't making headway. Just like when I tried out using a Wacom tablet. Tried it for three weeks. Just couldn't get used to it. Not nearly as precise as using a mouse. When it came to editing. I use it for photoshop. That's different.

FCX just doesn't work the way my brain does. Years of conditioning maybe. But I just didn't get it, and wasn't making any headway towards getting it. And I didn't need too. Avid works the way I do. FCP still does. CS 6 is getting there.

One thing FCX has against it is that it can't build on the success of FCP. It can't just take over where FCP legacy left off. It has to start all over again. If it fulfills a need, it might do well. If not, it won't. CS 6 is fulfilling a need. A tool to do what a lot of editors were used to doing in FCP Legacy. And the ability to work natively, without transcoding. That's why it seems to be getting a good foothold.

I agree with much of what you say there, Bill, though I'm not quite as confident that Apple will carry through. I don't necessarily believe that they won't, but I'd certainly like to see a little more reassurance that they will. My gut tells me that it just doesn't matter to them that much anymore, but I'd happily be wrong.

[Chris Harlan]"I agree with much of what you say there, Bill, though I'm not quite as confident that Apple will carry through. I don't necessarily believe that they won't, but I'd certainly like to see a little more reassurance that they will. My gut tells me that it just doesn't matter to them that much anymore, but I'd happily be wrong."

Fair enough.

The thing I'm starting to see is that FCP-X is no longer exclusively a video editing play for Apple.

That X is constructed on a metadata scaffolding is just a reflection that all of communications is increasingly built on that same reality.

I was reading a customer relationship marketing journal last night and the entire issue was focused on about trends in corporate use of social media - and at the core of all that? Data mining, and customer analytics.

It continues the "metadatafication" of the entire planet. If you can't find, manipulate and deploy your communications into a world where people can use them via search and metadata access, you increasingly are stuck "outsourcing" the most vital part of all your communications to others.

Heck, I took the family up to Sedona last weekend, and on the way, stopped to take a few photos of the Gladiator Fire in the distance. When I got back, I sent them to the local TV station. Before I did that, I had to take the time to tag my photos with my copyright details and contact info.

I doubt it will result in anything since they weren't all that much WOW photos, but the important thing is how my *thinking* has changed relative to all my digital data creations now. And that's because of what I've learned about metadata strategies using FCP-X.

It's encouraged me to think about my videos as just another form of digital data stream - and how self-discipline in using tags and metadata is likely to make the work I do today - even more valuable in the future - if I can just discipline myself to index and archive it properly.

It's something that has changed my entire thinking about how my work fits into the larger digital world.

Maybe everybody else here has done exactly the same inside their AVID or Premier workflows. But I never thought this way about FCP-Legacy. When I was using that tool, =an "edit" was a thing I did - then stuck on a shelf.

In X, I see my edits a little bit more as mini-programs in a connected library. And so the metadata is the core to searching, sorting and re-purposing it after the fact.

X really has changed my foundational thinking about how video fits into my working life.

Not sure anyone else will see it this way - but it's my new working reality.

And I still find it exciting.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

Bill, would you elaborate a bit on your comment below? In a (very) rare event, I have strapped myself down in front of FCPX tutorials (I do NOT do tutorials! lol) and have been learning X while trying as little as possible to "mold" it to my way thinking. I've found quite a few things that make me pause and go "hmm.... that's neat...", not the least of which are the metadata aspects.

What's your workflow to support the concept below? Add metadata as you work, then when project is complete, offline the media, but keep the project files online to enable metadata searching? I can immediately think of one client where a "permanent metadata library" would be a heck of a thing, WAY better than just named clips & folders. Which then leads to the question; could metadata for clips be shared? (Simple as sharing an event with clip info?)

In X, I see my edits a little bit more as mini-programs in a connected library. And so the metadata is the core to searching, sorting and re-purposing it after the fact.

[Bob Woodhead]"Bill, would you elaborate a bit on your comment below?"

I'll try.

In X. the Event Library is persistent across all of your "loaded" projects. So work you do there in terms of tagging, color correction, pre-editing, etc can be applied to as many Projects as you like.

Notice the word "loaded" above. You can load and unload ranges of projects, even without any LAN or SAN construct simply by locating Project and Event folders on external Firewire drives. Those projects "auto load" upon drive connection and appear in your Event Browser as soon as X sees them.

With this understanding in mind, you can create Events that hold persistent assets - logos, clips, titling, etc, that become available to any and all projects that you might have on line.

The Project Library is also pretty special in my thinking. It's a place that expresses the "live state" of your projects. With a thoughtful strategy for making the clips in your projects persistent (typically via the Share menu) these won't go "off-line" unless you wish them to. So it starts to act like a library (hence the name) of your work that you can revise and re-export at will.

I combine this with Vimeo Pro and YouTube accounts to distribute work for both client approvals and for actually client deployment for public consumption. Since these projects are "live' in my Project library, and editing them is no more difficult than double clicking on them to make changes, I don't think of them as "cutoff" masters any longer, but as assets that are a part of my live video database.

This has been a fundamental shift in my thinking.

With Legacy, a "video" was something I cut off and put somewhere when it was done.

X encourages me to think of my videos more like word processing documents, stored in a particular state now in the Project Library, but ready to use, combine, deploy, or change later as needed.

Thats the best "top of my head" overview I can come up with on the fly.

Hope it helps.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"That X is constructed on a metadata scaffolding is just a reflection that all of communications is increasingly built on that same reality."

I agree that metadata is worth its weight in gold, but I don't find myself as enamored w/FCPX's metadata abilities. Maybe part of it is because I've worked as a vault librarian and an AE so for years my whole world was tagging, sorting, organizing, cross-referencing, tracking and protecting assets from less meticulous users. A few years ago I would've gone gaga over FCPX's metadata but then I saw things like FC Server and CatDV I was like "This. Is. Awesome."

I want more than FCPX can provide which is why I'm looking at standalone DAM (Digital Asset Management) software. I also worry about putting all my meta-eggs in the FCPX basket and then not being able to get them out again. For software like CatDV it's in their best interests to use open standards and make CatDV as compatible w/as many NLEs as possible so that makes me more comfortable when I think about the process of building an asset library that will live and grow with me for years, and hopefully decades, into the future.

[Andrew Kimery]"For software like CatDV it's in their best interests to use open standards and make CatDV as compatible w/as many NLEs as possible so that makes me more comfortable when I think about the process of building an asset library that will live and grow with me for years, and hopefully decades, into the future."

Nothing wrong with that view.

X is perfectly suited for what I need. Which is a tool I can use to learn the ropes and develop personal strategies and habits with regard to metadata and tagging.

I don't have sophisticated needs at this point, just a desire to learn the new language.

I honestly hope CatDV turns out to be just what you're looking for.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

And Tony this is where different styles have different needs. I agree that FCPX seems to work well for a pretty straingt forward cut. A series of actions where one just cuts from one shot to the next with simple foley and sync sound.

However, in my more experimental work I will use multi-layered video that doesn't always work on a one to one length with the several other shots of whict it overlays . A certain piece of video may run through out a segment, over several other shots, and I will vary its opacity using key frames. I often have multiple layers of video working all at once. At the same time I may have several tracks of sound. I do use sync, but it is often only a small part of my overall sound design.

For this FCPX seems ill-suited. I have seen where folks have come up with various byzantine work-arounds in FCPX to achieve the same results. However, I am never going to remember all of those. And the fact is I would have to spend A LOT of time in X to get to the point I am now in Legacy (and my time to experiment in a new NLE is limited). I moved from a flatbed to tape-based linear editing to NLE over the years and the basics of intercutting and montage have not really changed. I've had to learn new stuff sure, but FCPX is the first time in the process I feel that I would come in further behind the game than when I made a changeover.

That said, I know this is only me with my very specialized workflow. There are a lot of people I think may benefit from FCPX and are resisting for all the wrong reasons. They stay away not because it doesn't work for them, but because of negative (admittedly some deserved)feedback. But there are others --particularly in higher end production -- that FCPX's editing paradigm as it now stands will never work IMO. I think apple is going to have to makes some major changes in X to entice those folks.

From a finishing facility point of view, my attitude has changed in one respect. I now tell editors that there is a workflow out of FCPX for broadcast work and I no longer caution against them using it, provided they also purchase software to get AAF or OMF out.

But the feedback I get from a lot of editors mirrors Shane's. They just don't think the methodology is an improvement and the learning curve is off putting. Most importantly there is more affordable choice than ever for an alternative NLE so let this weird offshoot cater to the prosumer. This seems to be at the heart of many complaints. 'X is not designed for working broadcast editors'. This is a common perception from editors. (Don't shoot the messenger.)

Without a doubt though the thing that has not changed and in many cases seems worse is the trust issue. Another universal comment is that Apple cannot be trusted and there is a resentment at the 'my way or the highway' approach. The perception is that Apple have been reluctant to change their vision of what editors need and that the heavy lifting of getting features back has been from keen third parties.

Personally I think many issues have been addressed but in a way that still makes people reluctant to put trust in Apple for editing software and hardware.

Certainly that has been my perception based on the limited number of people I normally interact with. Whether or not that perception holds remains to be seen. Younger folk than me drive trends. If a new generation of filmmakers latches on to FCP X then it could be here to stay. For good or ill.

Having read through the entire thread so far, I see a few themes touched on regarding individuals as well as established facilities.

I think there's another area where Apple and FCPX will make headway. The startup facilities. Given the economy, I think we may see those will capital restraints looking at FCPX and Thunderbolt based Macs. Many of these people wont have the baggage of the FCP7 EOL. They won't worry as much about towers compared to the flexibility Thunderbolt affords them. They'll see a lower cost eco system with an end to end workflow even with the need to move to Resolve, ProTools or even Smoke.

It's not that I believe every startup or even most will go this route. Many are being advised by the "sages." A few though will see this as a way to start businesses with less overhead. Even this may take some time. Given the possible improvements by the end of this year and certainly through next, FCPX may gain ground in new businesses. As a few of these facilities survive with the tightest of belts in this economy, the success stories will spread. Maybe at that point some of the more established facilities may have to reconsider especially taking economic conditions into consideration.

[Craig Seeman]"I think there's another area where Apple and FCPX will make headway. The startup facilities."

Is there such a thing?

[Craig Seeman]"Given the economy, I think we may see those will capital restraints looking at FCPX and Thunderbolt based Macs. Many of these people wont have the baggage of the FCP7 EOL. They won't worry as much about towers compared to the flexibility Thunderbolt affords them. They'll see a lower cost eco system with an end to end workflow even with the need to move to Resolve, ProTools or even Smoke."

If by "facility" you mean "freelancer with overhead," I think this makes a lot of sense.

If you mean facility in the traditional sense of the word, I don't see it. We're talking about cost differences for software licensing and hardware that can be recouped in the room in a couple hours. This is a rounding error in comparison to the costs of space and storage infrastructure, and can be financed over time anyway. With Creative Cloud at $50/user/mo, a facility can spend more on coffee for an editor than they will on his or her NLE itself!

These costs also pale in comparison to the big cost of any facility which cannot be so easily financed -- labor.

Depending on workflow, FCPX editorial may provide benefits, or it may be a hindrance. If the labor market isn't there, it severely restricts the talent pool. In either of these last two cases, building the facility around FCPX because it's cheap is penny wise and pound foolish.

Even if the belts are as tight as you describe, the low cost is not an automatic advantage for FCPX. Since the facility will likely need Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects, FCPX is actually a $299 extra expense. They already have Premiere Pro for free.

Walter not all facilities are scores of seats.
Yes I think there will be small facilities in which a small number of people who may have a prior history of collaboration putting together a few seats. It can be someones putting together a few iMacs in a small office with a SAN who have a few corporate clients to hold them together while the seek to expand their business. There are many small business that startup and expand. It's often these lower capital startups that compete with some of the older more established facilities (or maybe the latter simply don't find it worth competing for that end of the business).

It can also be the corporate entity itself that wants to put together a small workgroup for in house work. It may even be the small in house work group "let go" and decide to replicate that on their own.

There's a huge amount of range from small to large and given the increase in demand for video and the decline in budgets, there will be those who find they can put together something professional for a very low cost of entry.

Having spent a good portion of my life editing in those types of facilities and seeing new ones spring up, this will be a growth point for FCPX.

[Craig Seeman]"Yes I think there will be small facilities in which a small number of people who may have a prior history of collaboration putting together a few seats... It can also be the corporate entity itself that wants to put together a small workgroup for in house work. It may even be the small in house work group "let go" and decide to replicate that on their own."

But in all these cases, if access to capital or startup cost is the determining factor as you outlined in your previous post, Creative Cloud wins, not FCPX.

Even with perpetual licensing, if you need PS, AI, and AE, you get Pr for free and FCPX would be an additional cost.

[Craig Seeman]"Having spent a good portion of my life editing in those types of facilities and seeing new ones spring up, this will be a growth point for FCPX."

I do agree with that. FCPX can and will win where it offers the best workflow. It's a good choice for many.

When the price is this low, and the hardware is common across all the major apps, I just don't see how sticker price of the NLE software will be the primary concern for a serious facility of any type or size.

If it were all about price, everyone would use be using Lightworks, right?

[Walter Soyka]"If it were all about price, everyone would use be using Lightworks, right?"

Some might be predicting that. Seriously though I can see some small not for profits using Lightworks for in house work because of dollar value.

[Walter Soyka]"Creative Cloud wins, not FCPX.

Even with perpetual licensing, if you need PS, AI, and AE, you get Pr for free and FCPX would be an additional cost."

It's why many feel Creative Cloud is a brilliant business strategy. I certainly see that.

Of course one might argue FCPX is a variant of that given that there's no upgrade pricing in the App Store. $300 for life and on a few of your systems as well. Of course we don't know how this will really play out (that's typical of Apple). It's certainly possible that the $299 and $50 each for Compressor and Motion (and Apple may have some other things coming) may be for life or at least some years with lots of feature upgrades along the way.

If those in this fictional startup are already using FCPX, they may simply authorize their machines at no cost at all. Of course this might open a can of worms depending on the circumstances. It's not that FCPX will own this market exclusively, it's that it may be one of its stronger areas of growth. Certainly FCPX would be a contender in this market whereas it may not even be approachable in the "established" facilities.

[Craig Seeman]"Of course one might argue FCPX is a variant of that given that there's no upgrade pricing in the App Store. $300 for life and on a few of your systems as well."
There might be no upgrade pricing in the App store but I never assumed that to mean they'll never be a new version of FCPX which will cost another $299.

[Andrew Kimery]"There might be no upgrade pricing in the App store but I never assumed that to mean they'll never be a new version of FCPX which will cost another $299."

As I stated, we don't know. They may not either. Market conditions may help them make a determination. I know other developers have done that but I haven't seen Apple do that. The first hint might be in how they handle Logic Pro X, given Logic Pro 9 is in the App Store. Like so many other things Apple, this is going to be a year of guessing while we see what comes.

Do I need ongoing Internet access to use my Creative Suite applications?
Because your Creative Suite applications are installed directly on your computer, you will not need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis. However, you will need to be online when you install and license your software, and at least once every 30 days thereafter. The software will alert you when you need to connect to the Internet for a license status check.

It also means that subscribers are locked into paying for the software continually. They can't choose to skip an upgrade (or two or three) if they're fine with the current capabilities of the software.

If I decide to stop my membership, will I still be able to use my Creative Suite software and the other components of Creative Cloud?
When you cancel a month-to-month or annual membership purchased directly from Adobe or let a 3- or 12-month prepaid membership purchased from a retailer expire, you will no longer have access to the CS applications, other desktop software, and services that are components of Creative Cloud.

Ultimately, you have no control over costs beyond a year out. If Adobe increases the subscription cost 15% each year, you can't just choose to take a break, as you'll loose all access to the software:

Will the cost of my membership ever increase?
When you purchase directly from Adobe, the cost of an annual membership will not go up during the 12 months for which you are subscribed. It is possible that the cost of the month-to-month membership will increase, but if it does, you will be notified and given the opportunity to cancel.

A huge question also, why would anyone invest in a post infrastructure that ties them to Apple computers with no clue on whether or not powerful macs will exist in the near future? Both Avid and Adobe are hardware agnostic. This is enough reason to not go with X all on its own regardless of its features.

[David Powell]"A huge question also, why would anyone invest in a post infrastructure that ties them to Apple computers with no clue on whether or not powerful macs will exist in the near future?"

I would say because it defies reason that Apple would develop this whole new FCPX paradigm and not sell hardware that runs it optimally. The hardware may look and interface differently than past Mac heavy iron, but they will definitely bring new, faster Macs to market featuring Thunderbolt.

This may not match ideally with many existing visions/facilities, but it's not a dead end. It is a new and different path.

[Jim Giberti]" because it defies reason that Apple would develop this whole new FCPX paradigm and not sell hardware that runs it optimally."

Apple might just change their mind. They have done that in the past, or so I've been told. It is not beyond believing that they might decide to dump any part of the pro app business if it doesn't suit their unknown and unknowable purposes. It's hard to plan when only they know where they think the puck is going.

I do think there's an inherent benefit for Apple in continuing to develop software like Aperture, Logic, and FCPX. Apple's pro-apps have long been testbeds for bringing consumer-facing versions of those features to the iLife suite- which is given away free on all new Macs- a selling feature they've pushed since the resurgence of the Mac platform in the early 2000's. And now on iOS as well.

I'm not sure what anyone is smoking who thinks high end Macs are going away. As long as Apple wants people developing for their platform... Apple will keep the Mac alive and vibrant. A venn diagram of people who think FCPX is abandoning Pros, and those that think a "MacPro" replacement aren't coming probably has a huge overlap. And honestly, if someone has those concerns, then they should absolutely move on to another platform. 'Cause while Apple is giving us peaks into FCPXs 2012 roadmap, they'll NEVER provide guidance on their hardware plans. And I'd be surprised if Apple even kept up the "sneak peaks" long term.

Right now they're just affirming the upcoming reintegration of previous functionality. But once all the big holes are filled and they're stretching out into whatever new territory they have planned, I'd imagine our window will close.

Could I see the MacPro going away? Absolutely. But not functional hole that it fills.
"

Sorry. I wasn't trying for compelling debate, because you weren't debating. You were simply insulting people who, for a variety of reasons, have serious doubts about Apple's commitment to workstations. I was simply returning the favor. Sometimes "I know you are, but what am I?" is all a comment requires.

If you look around this forum you'll see that this is a much-discussed topic. There are certainly people who agree with you, and some of them make fairly good arguments. Many of them believe that Apple will release, if not a mini MacPro, then a iMacPro. I'd be happy to think this is the case, but I see a lot of evidence to the contrary, and am not counting on such a thing to happen. From my perspective, Apple has missed far too many moments to introduce a new MacPro, and has made far too many statements about being a post-PC company for anyone to feel secure that they plan to continue with any kind of workstation. Add to that that workstations are an utterly insignificant part of their revenue, and that the company has aggressively touted a form of cloud computing that breaks their traditional echo system, I'm really not expecting Apple to come out with any kind of heavy hitter. As I've said in the past, I'd be delighted to be wrong, but as each opportunity to update their current line of heavy hitters passes by without remark, my doubt grows. Frankly, as inconvenient as it might be for me personally, I think it is probably a better choice for them not to. So, that's what I'm smoking.

I think it speaks to a larger, dare I say philosophical?, question of what a workstation is. You go back even 5 years and the processing advantage between a MacPro and an iMac was miles apart. Now you see demos of people working with 4K material on a MacBook Air via Thunderbolt. So I think part of my thought process is that the old tropes that some people hold up are becoming more irrelevant by the day. In fact, if 1080p were to be any kind of long-term standard, then I'd almost say we could see the horizon where processor power might catch up with demand. But with RAW 4K looming on the horizon for a broader slice of the market, I no longer think we'll see the ceiling anytime soon.

Now obviously sheer processor power only gets you so far. Render farms or high end graphics and color suites DO benefit from a 12core machine with 64GB of ram and multiple GPUs. I'm putting my money on Thunderbolt to be the solution. It isn't now (though man those transfer speeds come in handy!) but I don't think we're too far off from a TB capable of enough lanes to support a breakout box that can handle all the stuff that we shove into a PCI slot. I'd wager that Apple won't even make that breakout mini tower of power, but it will be there for those who have that need. And once you can outbound that, then the user can buy ANY Mac and it can be a workstation device.

If I had to bet, I'd say we will see one final TB MacPro, simply because TB isn't fast enough yet. But I agree that if it's going to happen it will have to happen soon. The natives are restless.

[Marcus Moore]" think it speaks to a larger, dare I say philosophical?, question of what a workstation is. You go back even 5 years and the processing advantage between a MacPro and an iMac was miles apart. Now you see demos of people working with 4K material on a MacBook Air via Thunderbolt."

I talk about this a lot when we discuss workstations here.

There's a distinction between computing power and throughput. You used to need a workstation to get both. Now, courtesy of Thunderbolt, you can pretty much get the throughput without the computing power.

However, I think it's myopic to suggest this means Apple can reduce the relative computing power they offer on the desktop without affecting our industry. Thunderbolt is still a relatively narrow pipe when compared with server- or workstation-class PCIe, there are still applications with high RAM requirements, and there are still applications (especially compositing or 3D applications) that can soak up every cycle of processing power your machine can offer.

Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities, so once we can deliver a better visual or a tighter turnaround, that becomes the new norm.

There is no such thing as enough processing power, and I think that if Apple only moves forward with throughput without corresponding advances in computing power on their desktop machines, they'll lose whatever portion of the high-end (read: high-expectation) markets adjacent to editorial that they have left.

And I'd completely agree with that. I guess my general point is that people put too much emphasis on "form" and not "function". If Apple can outbound GPU and PCIe via Thunderbolt, then really a tower replacement could be something much smaller, as long as it can hold the MacPro desktop class CPUs and enough RAM slots.

Unfortunately TB isn't there yet. So this is all theoretical.

So I remain convinced that Apple will release SOMETHING (either an updated MacPro or another design) that continues to fill this gap until TB can support enough lanes.

Here's a question. With video data throughput being most a separate issue, and Adobe and FCPX leaning more and more heavily on GPU power for real time playback, rendering, and encoding. How important is the CPU at this stage? What's the breakdown of responsibility between the CPU and GPU?

[Marcus Moore]"Unfortunately TB isn't there yet. So this is all theoretical."

It's part way there. They can replace 4xPCIe for the most part.
The next question would be how Apple handles internal drive expansion. I can see Apple dropping that for the most part as well. The MacPro replacement may have an SSD boot and an additional traditional hard drive and that's it. Drop the two optical disk spots . . . and you're looking at a smaller case. It'll be interesting to see how Sir Jonathan Ive and team handle cooling. Also of interest is what they'll do with GPU.

[Marcus Moore]"Here's a question. With video data throughput being most a separate issue, and Adobe and FCPX leaning more and more heavily on GPU power for real time playback, rendering, and encoding."

To me this is actually the biggest question. It may be the biggest issue amongst us "Pros." Will they go the iMac route of built in, not user replaceable or, another route which may allow us to swap or add a second internal GPU.

[Marcus Moore]" With video data throughput being most a separate issue, and Adobe and FCPX leaning more and more heavily on GPU power for real time playback, rendering, and encoding. How important is the CPU at this stage? What's the breakdown of responsibility between the CPU and GPU?"

The GPU is for real time playback, the CPU is for encoding and rendering.

One issue that seems to be missed is the one that has kept me from pursuing FCPX.

I am a one man show. I write, shoot and edit. Even though it is my favorite part of the process, I have only so much time to spend on editing. It has taken me years to get where I am in terms of skill in FCP. There is a lot to learn and tutorials & books get you only so far. You just can't remember everything. It takes hands on work in the NLE and with each passing year I got better and better.

Right or wrong, my perception of FCPX is that I would need to pretty much start from scratch. So it would be a good five years before I was at a skill level I now enjoy in FC Legacy no matter the features it offers. This is because there is just so much I can retain from any teaching tool and it would take hands on work to pick up certain skill sets.

I have PPRO 5.5, but when it comes right down to it, I have pretty much stuck with FC7 because I want to get the project done. Now that I see raw video in my future, I may be forced out of FC Legacy. But I tend to aim towards Premiere because I feel I won't lose all of the years of learning I have invested. I may be mistaken, but I feel going with FCPX means I am starting pretty much at zero.

Another question is: have FCPX and CS6 changed your perception about FCP7. FCP7 was the holy grail to many. I always disliked it, because when I started using it (2008) it was already an old software. Others, like Edius, already used P2 and h.264 natively then. But to be able to collaborate I pretty much had to use FCP7 in my market.

FCPX came and I switched within 2 weeks. And never looked back. I edited docs, music videos, TV-shows, used it in Live-environments...it just works great for me. So my first perception was correct: it is a very versatile and deep application which hasn´t even scratched the surface yet. BUT I acknowledge that there are a few quirks still. But then there are some tools I would´t want to live without anymore.

But FCP7 now REALLY looks like the lame duck it always was. CS6 wipes the floor with FCP7 from what I read and saw (but never really had time to try it). So what do the FP7 disciples think about their NLE?

[alban egger]"But FCP7 now REALLY looks like the lame duck it always was. CS6 wipes the floor with FCP7 from what I read and saw (but never really had time to try it). So what do the FP7 disciples think about their NLE?"

I wish there was something as good so I could buy it, but so far, everything else comes up short. Every other system is too rigid. FCP7 allows me to edit with more freedom - multiple open timelines, timecode sync indicators so I'm not afraid to disconnect my audio from my video, easy to work with audio split out over all my video sources, tracks allowing me to organize my info visually, ease of moving clips to different tracks, ease of copying specific attributes from one clip to any or all other clips ... a very flexible and customizable system that I wish someone else would match.

Herb,
I totally agree some of the features you want are only in FCP7. Some might be in CS6 and Avid. Few of those are in FCPX the way you are used to them. But as I did in other discussions with you ;-) I could point at just as many features in FCPX that are by now just as vital to me (and many others) that are in the FCPX paradigm more important than tracks and sync-markers (I have yet to miss the sync marker once in 11 months! it simply is not needed in FCPX)

You are absolutely right the tracks give a better visual overview. Maybe not for the initial editor, but when someone else comes to the project later. But to people who are used to FCPX and set the projects up properly with roles, it is very easy to get an overview with the roles and the item list. Not the same quick overview, takes a minute more, but a new editor is up to speed fast just like in FCP7, despite the missing tracks.

The inability of copying and pasting certain effects is the biggest problem of FCPX....you are absolutely right. That is a huge missing tool in FCPX and I wonder what takes them so long to bring it in.

The bad news is: FCP7 is legacy....nobody will come its way. Everyone will move away from it. Maybe FCP7 was the best NLE for its paradigm and couldn´t be improved (other than 64-bit) and for the sakes of generating new sales the software-giants move along without the need for moving along. I am happy Apple did move to X, but I understand if someone just doesn´t need anything else than FCP7. But I don´t hear only good things from CS6 and I definitely don´t hear only good things from AVID and I have a lot of bad things to say about FCP7.....so it will always be a compromise and I wish you luck finding the perfect replacement when you need to find it.

When FCPX was first released I thought, "This program is an unstable mess, and on top of that it's basically a souped-up version of iMovie"

Now, my opinion has changed to, "The stability issues have gotten much better and a few new professional features have been added, but it's basically a souped-up version of iMovie."

Even if X becomes rock-solid, without a beach ball in sight, there's still the issue of the hassles created by the "features" of the magnetic, trackless timeline.

Last year at the SuperMeet, Apple trumpeted FCPX like it was brand new and revolutionary, and it wasn't. Most of the core functionality in X already existed in iMovie before FCPX came out.

The paradigm of FCPX, which originated in Apple's consumer-friendly free editing app, was NOT DESIGNED to tackle the complex needs of professional editors who have deadlines looming, and that's why so many pros feel frustrated with it.

I remember seeing a post by someone in another thread who said, "You just have to think a few steps ahead of it." Then another poster responded with a line that sums up my feelings about X really well:

"I want to edit, not play a game of chess with my NLE."

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."

[Greg Andonian]"Last year at the SuperMeet, Apple trumpeted FCPX like it was brand new and revolutionary, and it wasn't. Most of the core functionality in X already existed in iMovie before FCPX came out."

Oh come on Greg. This is like arguing that because a Jaguar and a Yugo have engines, steering wheels and brakes, and so "share the same core functionality" that nobody can really tell the difference between driving the two.

Here's a news flash, since you clearly don't use X very much. Nobody actually competetent can do in iMovie the same level of editing they can do in X. In modern grade school terms - one of these things is NOT like the other.

But more than that - the real differences is more subtle.

I was kinda BORED editing in Legacy. The changes were all minor and incremental after all those years of development. It had gone as far as that mode of editing needed to go, perhaps.

X was willing to blow up the boring past for the promise of a more interesting future - and that's precisely what it's been for me.

I'm having more FUN editing. I'm getting more work done - faster - and easier than before I switched to X.

Every month I use it, I find more to like - and that's after 11 straight months of increasing success with it.

So sorry, but if the best argument you can muster is the same one from week ONE of X's existence when nobody understood it... (it's just iMovie Pro, dude) ... than I feel for you.

11 months on and you're brain is largely where it was 11 months ago?

That's just kinda weird, IMO.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Greg Andonian]"I remember seeing a post by someone in another thread who said, "You just have to think a few steps ahead of it." Then another poster responded with a line that sums up my feelings about X really well:

"I want to edit, not play a game of chess with my NLE.""

I said it, and you're taking it a bit out of context.

We were talking about specific timeline mechanics.

The point was, you have to play chess with any interface. Whether or not it feels like chess or checkers is another matter. You know where the fcp7 timeline fails, and most of the time, you are probably thinking ahead, but in your brain that's "the right way".

X's timeline is different and unfamiliar, so it might feel like "the wrong way". It does take some retooling.

I don't have any experience with iMovie. I tried to watch some movies online to see how similar they are.

They don't seem very similar to me. Imovie's Events seem to be where FCPX's Projects are. But what do I know, I'm not interested in iMovie. I also think iMovie is 32bit vs FCPX 64 bit, so they can't be super similar under the hood.

While there are some iMovie roots, I think we will start to see the products diverge over time. It's already happened, and with more time in the incubator, the two will have a passing resemblance.

How deep have you dived with another NLE?

I'm not talking about opening it up, applying fcp7 shortcuts and performing a three point edit and declaring it a success, I'm talking about really diving in. Or are you letting the internet do the hard work and make those decisions for you?

[Greg Andonian]"Now, my opinion has changed to, 'The stability issues have gotten much better and a few new professional features have been added, but it's basically a souped-up version of iMovie.'"

[Greg Andonian]"Apple trumpeted FCPX like it was brand new and revolutionary, and it wasn't. Most of the core functionality in X already existed in iMovie before FCPX came out."

And here we have the perfect example of how the stigma of FCPX persists in the face of facts.

Aside from some asthetic considerations, there is very little alike between iMovie and FCPX. Certainly nothing in their "core" functionality.

The magnetic timeline is not a "core" function of FCPX although it's often mistaken for one. The magnetic timeline is simply a reverse default to functionality that has existed in Avid for years: sync locks. If you've ever cut on an Avid with sync locks on, then it's identical to cutting with FCPX's magnetic timeline.

A core function of FCPX is the parent/child relationship. This only exists in FCPX and I suspect is one of the key things that people like or dislike about the program.

However, this does not exist in iMovie. In iMovie you can't even have one clip on top of another. I would even argue that iMovie doesn't have a timeline at all but rather a rudimentary storyboard where clip length can be edited.

Both iMovie and FCPX have Event Library's, but aside from the name, they have little in common and an Event Library is hardly a core function of the program. After all, every NLE needs a project window where the clips are stored. Avid has one, Premiere has one. FCPX calls it an event library, but it functions similarly.

What IS a core function is the keyword collections. There is no such thing in iMovie. All your clips are in events and it's the only way to organize them. FCPX has a highly developed, database driven, organizational structure.

Here's a primer for those wanting to know what's alike and not between iMovie and FCPX.

I don't think the perception of FCP X has changed. To be honest. Mine has, btw.

When it was first released, 'everyone' hated it. Me too. I tried some things, was very enthusiastic, and came back from a cold shower after trying to cut a theatre play on it. This was FCP 10.0.0.
First day of release. You couldn't even relink media. Sorry, but that users had to wait more than a half of a year for this was really worrying, especially because communication from Apple was very bad.

Then I took the Switch deal of Adobe's Production Premium (I didn't have a Photoshop license yet, so it was a good deal for me anyhow).
Regarding that PRemiere worked with RED RAW, and I knew I was going to work with RED RAW in the future, and at that point NO indication of Apple that they would support this, or if they had Professional Plans with FCP X, I bought the deal.
But I don't really like editing in Premiere. The interface is clunkier, the difference is in the small things, and I quickly returned to FCP 7.

After the 10.0.3 update, I became interested because it had the multicam features WITHOUT angles needing to be the same format or even frame rate.
I had something I needed to do in that week with a LOT of Ken Burns style animations. I knew about the automatic Ken Burns effect in FCP X, and the no 4K limit on pictures like in FCP 7 so I decided to try the software again.

Long story short, I cursed a lot in those 2 weeks, yelling a lot, giving Apple a lot of feedback, BUT at the same time I also had a lot of "aha!" moments. The speed of the editing, once you got used to the program, could be so fast in comparison with FCP 7. It really did felt 'backwards' opening FCP 7 again.

I'm not convinced, still; though. I really have a a very dual feeling about it.
I used FCP X more and more. I really begin liking it. I like the speed of exporting. I like the editing features. I like the fact that I can immediately see where audio clips. I like that if I change the volume of an audio clip, I can immediately dynamically see the difference on the waveform.
I like the possibilities of the meta data, I love the multicam feature. I love how there are more and more plugins coming every week, more and more programs supporting it's XML. It's reassuring.
But there are also a lot of things I hate. The way it doesn't have timecode overlays in the canvas now, the way you cannot work with clip timecode sometimes (I loved the Timecode overlays in FCP 7 and we use them A LOT, the way 10.0.4 doesn't have a clip timecode reader function, etc.
And when I pulled in a lot of XDCAM clips, working in 3D with the Dashwood Stereo Toolbox, it was much smoother in FCP 7 (!!!) then in FCP X, on the same Macbook Pro. Also the way FCP X showed it's viewer on the second screen was not that easy for working with a 3D plasma.
The program misses a lot of features, and some of them need such work-arounds that there are moments that you ask yourself: it is all worth it?

But yes, MY perspective has changed. I think it's very capable, but also pretty buggy in moments, and still misses a lot of functionality. BUT, the updates that Apple announced (R3D support, Audio tools, Dual Viewers, ...) are very good, and very 'pro'. I like their magnetic timeline, although it could use some more flexibility. I like their meta-database way of thinking. Like it or not, these are huge fundamental changes, and I think this really could give Apple a big step forward in the future.
I mailed Apple about the future of FCP X, if they were listening to the feedback of pro's, or if they were gearing it towards prosumers. I got a mail back (yes, it surprised me too) they they took it seriously and and they really wanted it known as a professional package.

They also added a FCP X in Action page again on their website. I think they should do much more of this, because as I said, they still have the stigma.

Which brings me to the other side: yes my perspective changed, but NO, I don't think the general perspective of the industry changed towards FCP X. All the editors I talked too cursed on FCP X (yes, most of them HAD NOT used it), they stayed on FCP 7 while learning AVID, ...
I did my bunch of complaining when the program was just released, but I also did my bunch of sharing positive experiences after using it with the 10.0.3 update. But most editors don't really want to listen.
We'll see.

I think if Apple released the program in the 10.0.3 version, I think A LOT of this stigma never would have been there. I think they should be much more responsive. They do it, but they could do more.
They should put more videos on their website, advertise more on NAB and professional outlets (although from what I've been told, NAB 2012 had a lot of FCP X on stand too, with the Smoke accepting the XML, Davinci working with FCP X XML, Thunderbolt accessories, ...), and help getting this stigma out of the world. Get a better manual out there too, which is more transparant.
(Example? I used proxies for a test, small test. When I exported using Current Settings, the final media file was Prores Proxy. I was under the impression that proxies were solely used for having editing speed, but that the final render wouldn't be in proxy files, even if you selected to use them. Well, FCP X did, if I checked off the proxy feature in the preferences again, and then re-exported, it was regular Prores, which I also thought was strange, because the original setting of the first images was XDCAM. It just isn't that transparant in how it handles media. Yes it has these automatically making proxies and prores in the background, automatically relinking if they are ready, but it also has a lot of small gotchas that AREN'T well described in the manual)
A lot of it is based on the 10.0.0 version. That being said, I do think the program has a long way to go in features. On the other hand, when I use Premiere Pro or read about Avid, I also think they would have to go long ways to get the same kind of fluidity and editing speed of FCP X.

My preception has changed - A little bit in that anyone willing to do deal with the shortcoming of the magnetic timeline, the audio issues, bloat, etc can do “pro” level work on it. But why would anyone want to deal with that when theres a bunch of other NLE’s doing the job the right way. The multicam is rad, but thats about it. Everything else just seems unnecessary and convoluted.

That said, I still use FCP 7 alongside Media Composer every single day, and i still love it. Sure i cant wack a h264 file in there and expect to be cutting it native but i dont mind transcoding as its just part of the process now. Other than that FCP 7 and MC work amazing for me. There rock solid, and i can forget about bug this and bloat that, and what features may or may not come, and actually just edit.

If Apple released a new version of FCP 10 (which would be called 10.1 because I believe they switched over to using the same version numbering system that they use for OS X) does anyone think that would wash away some of the stigma since it would be a new version and not the same 10.0 version that so many people hated? I wonder how many people see the point updates as Apple trying to patch a broken production where as a new version many times carries w/it the air of a fresh/revitalized product and new features.

[alban egger]"But FCP7 now REALLY looks like the lame duck it always was. CS6 wipes the floor with FCP7 from what I read and saw (but never really had time to try it). So what do the FP7 disciples think about their NLE?"
And isn't amazing that a "lame duck" became the industry standard all around the world?
Anyway, the only one to blame for the shortcomings of FC is Apple.
They kill him last year but in fact they stopped any serious developing by FC.6.
They had a great tool, but instead of improving it they waisted few year planning how to flash the audience.
If, as you say, PPCS6 wipes the floor with FC7, the people at Adobe must be laughing out loud for all the work Apple have done for free for them.
rafael

[Rafael Amador]"[alban egger] "But FCP7 now REALLY looks like the lame duck it always was. CS6 wipes the floor with FCP7 from what I read and saw (but never really had time to try it). So what do the FP7 disciples think about their NLE?"
And isn't amazing that a "lame duck" became the industry standard all around the world?"

[Mathieu Ghekiere]"Long story short, I cursed a lot in those 2 weeks, yelling a lot, giving Apple a lot of feedback, BUT at the same time I also had a lot of "aha!" moments. The speed of the editing, once you got used to the program, could be so fast in comparison with FCP 7. It really did felt 'backwards' opening FCP 7 again."

In one way or another everyone's covered all I want to say, particularly Walter. I've dealt with the growing pains and still use FCP 7 alongside X. The first week of X's release I saw my editorial productivity skyrocket - no comparison. I could edit and organize faster in X. Within months FCP 7 felt old and lethargic. I recently downloaded PrP 6 and MC6. I ran back to both FCP 7 and eagerly want to cut on FCP X more.

I consider the scope of what Apple's been doing in recent years - Core Animation, Core Graphics, Core Audio, Core Data, GPU leveraging, cleaning and streaming code with OS updates and FCP [classic] updates, mobile devices and their desktop-software counterparts, buying, rebranding/repackaging, improving, feature-merging (Shake-Motion, Logic-Soundtrack), and the massive undertaking of AV foundation and frankly I think we're starting to see the fruits of a lot of labor that we hadn't yet had the chance to fully exploit; thank you 64-bit.

I follow the developers as they find hidden gems of FCP X yet to be "activated", it's color capabilities, the awesome relational database structure it uses and how that metadata will help us later (when more hooks are available to get it out) and I see a bright future for X. I do believe that there's "one more thing" perhaps we'll see this year or early next; either a feature or separate app.

Someone demoes PrP6 on a massively beefed-up system recently at an LA event and it occurred to me. Apple seldom demos (publicly) on a MacPro. We all know the MacPro's gonna shine. They demo on things like...wait for it...iMacs. That speaks volumes when you consider when you look at the performance based on their code, the core technologies, and what can be done on non-extended hardware.

My perception has changed since the release of X. It went from "this is fun, let me see how i can use it" to I want to cut everything in X now.

PrP6 is really nice, but it is very much like FCP7+ (and I mean that in a very positive way for Adobe).Though now I find myself not looking for a FCP 7 or anything like it. In my personal recent test, just a basic AVCHD (from Af100) open archive, edit, draw the thumbnails for the skimmer/hover, playback and skim/hover playback, transcode (to ProRes), etc., FCP X outperformed PrP6 by a huge margin on one of my older systems (Mac Pro 2x2.26 Quad-Core Intel Xeon/ 16 GB RAM/ ATI Radeon HD 5770/Blackmagic Multibridge Pro 2).

At the end of the day we'll vote with our dollars. FCP 7 still works for me. FCP X is increasingly working out for me. Cutting my first 4K RED project in it (ProRes of course for now). I am looking forward to checking out the new Smoke too.

[Tangier Clarke]"buying, rebranding/repackaging, improving, feature-merging (Shake-Motion, Logic-Soundtrack), and the massive undertaking of AV foundation and frankly I think we're starting to see the fruits of a lot of labor that we hadn't yet had the chance to fully exploit; thank you 64-bit."

Don't know what you are talking about - Shake, Color, FCP Legacy haven't been rebranded, they've been totally destroyed. It's been software homicide around Cupertino for years. If I were an App and I heard Apple Pro Apps was calling I would just tuck my head between my legs and kiss my ass good-bye.

Herb, that's why I added "feature-merging". You are correct about the destruction of these apps, but they some of their features were rolled into other apps and now FCP X in some ways. I am not saying that our current toolset is a replacement for those now gone apps, but rather acknowledging how Apple tends to (even outside the production and post world) bring high end features to the masses in ways sometimes I am sure we all don't appreciate in some way shape or form.

My fault for not making that clear. Perhaps I was trying to be too concise with commas, and run-ons. It's something Apple has done across their entire hardware/spectrum for some time and I was pointing to that to try and make some connection to the way things are going with the controversial release of X, subsequent updates, and our projections for it's future (features and perhaps another app).

Mine has changed too :) but I was for FCPX at the start. I had the chance to take in the hoopla at NAB last year and was not at all feeling that FCP was left for dead by Apple.
See the diff is that Im an Avid MC user at work but teach FCP at local college. I had the pleasure of starting a new course in Sept that year and had the chance to actually go into the guts of X with the intent of matching/better than FCP legacy. Not make FCP look bad but to assure students that they are not learning a lame duck app.
I was shocked at start of class when I gave the students an option to learn old instead of new and they all picked new.
Were they all heading to Hollywood to edit a blockbuster...nope.
They were all willing to learn something new even if they had all summer to read all the negative press.
My perception has changed from having to learn it to deliver a class to actually finding many uses for it even though we are Avid dominant at work :)

Interesting thread. :-) Just thought I'd chime in here with some thoughts…This may end up being really long, so I'll apologize in advance.

A bit about me… I cut trailers and TV spots for features. I've been editing full time for around 15 years, and for 5 years or so previous to that was a sound editor and post production mixer. I also was a beta tester for versions 2 and 3 of FCP and was one of the first, or maybe even the first person, in Hollywood anyway, to finish a TV spot cut on FCP (Version 1 point something - I like taking risks lol). I think it was for Duece Bigelow. :-) But I digress…

First, to answer the original question… Yes, my opinion has changed. I was among the multitude of "pro's" who eagerly opened X when it first appeared, stared at it in horror, pressed a couple buttons, it crashed, and then I quickly downloaded the latest offerings from Avid and Adobe to see what I'd eventually be working with. They hadn't changed much really :-) Some months later I downloaded the free trial of 10.0.3. Same process, but it took a while longer for it to crash. Then .4 came out, and with it 7toX, so I figured what the hell, and bought it. Got a spot that I had cut in 7 imported to X and started to mess with it…

That was around a month ago and I've gotta say, it's pretty awesome. It's got some quirks but when this thing gets dialed in it's gonna be a killer. Yeah, it's sometimes sluggish, is currently missing a few key things, and a bunch of things FCP 7 users are used to, but that'll change. FCP 2 was just as clunky, if not more so, and look where we are now. :-) I'm still cutting in 7, but I've got 2 projects… uh… events… living in X right now. Real ones, with lots of sequences… er, projects, and clients and deadlines etc. It's a little scary since they're close to finishing… that'll be fun ;-)

I won't rehash all the missing things we all know about, I'm confident they'll reappear in time, I'll just note some stuff on which my opinion has changed, since that's what this thread is about… Now, if you believe Apple will abandon the "pro" market, which I don't, then nothing I say matters, but...

The skimmer… awesome. Searchable, range based keyword collections/favorites, all the metadata stuff… really cool.. goodbye "selects"! Storylines? Don't really get it, reminds me of old skool Avid cutting. Here's my solution… I don't use them. Well, I try not to anyway… at least 'til I figure them out a bit better. Trackless timeline… LOVE it! Seriously, I've always hated having to carefully assign my audio and video when I cut something into a sequence, and playing "Track Tetris" when I wanted to slip/copy a chunk of clips from one place to another. In X… just do it. F*ck tracks! And I'm originally an audio guy… lol Oh, and Roles… really, really, really cool… It does crash now and again, not that often, but it does. I have not lost a single edit. If I was trimming and it crashed, that trim was still done when I reopened it. *That* is amazing.

... There's more, good and bad, but I'll stop writing this novel now. Having actually used the app though, I realize how much FUD is floating around regarding X. It's ridiculous. In a recent Variety article, the head of the ACE *tech committee* said; "Pros need dedicated dialogue, music and sound effects tracks, and Final Cut Pro doesn't support that yet." Yes, pro's do need them, and …he's wrong. Take a couple minutes to assign roles to your clips, and it doesn't matter where they are in the timeline. There's no reason to waste time carefully arranging (audio) tracks anymore. Soloing is super easy, and you can highlight, mute, export roles so easily it's sort of mind boggling. This coming from someone who typically has between 16 and 24 tracks of audio in my timeline for a basic cut. And you can pile up as many video tracks as you want, create adjustment layers, really cool stuff.

Don't listen to internet opinions though, even mine. ;-) It's not all roses and kittens but give it a chance and you might be surprised. Playing with it on a fake project for a week doesn't count though, dive in ya chickens! lol If you don't like it, don't use it. But if you think it's not a pro app… you're totally, completely, unequivocally wrong. IMHO of course…

[Charlie Austin]"Don't listen to internet opinions though, even mine. ;-) It's not all roses and kittens but give it a chance and you might be surprised. Playing with it on a fake project for a week doesn't count though, dive in ya chickens! lol If you don't like it, don't use it. But if you think it's not a pro app… you're totally, completely, unequivocally wrong. "

Sounds like you found your thing, man. That's cool. Me, I like tracks. I like the organization. I also like multiple timelines. But, you're right. With the latest version (.03/.04), its a matter of taste now, and not Toy v. Tool. I've been cutting some spots on Pr 6, this week, and am enjoying that, mostly because of the multiple timelines, which I like to use as bins. But, its nice to have some NLE diversity out there, and I'm happy to hear someone else in the promo world saying nice things about X.

Hey, I'm curious--when you cut that Duece Bigalow spot on ancient FCP--was it offline, or did you have one of those early Cineflex cards?

Cinewave is actually what I meant. Wasn't that one of the first broadcast cards to work with FCP? I was on Windows at the time, and was using a DigisuiteLE, so I'm not familiar with what was happening on the Mac at the time.

[Steve Connor]"[Chris Harlan] " I was on Windows at the time, and was using a DigisuiteLE, so I'm not familiar with what was happening on the Mac at the time."

We had a Digisuite DTV, it's why I still can't bring myself to use Matrox hardware.

Cinewave was the main card with FCP in the early days I believe
"

Yeah. My Digisuite used to overheat like a SOB, and it made me wary of Matrox for years. I did get one of those MXO2 minis for my laptop when Avid allowed it, and it works pretty well. Slow driver support compared to the other two, though.

[Chris Harlan]"Sounds like you found your thing, man. That's cool. Me, I like tracks. I like the organization. I also like multiple timelines.

I hear ya, And really, the only reason I posted here was because my experience actually using X has been much different from much of the crap a lot of folks seem to believe based on version 1 or a day or two of playing with it.

As a former audio guy, I like organizing my timeline too, and I see Roles as being able to actually do it for you. All they need is a button that groups clips by Role in the timeline... and I can't see any reason they won't do that. Everything would just get automatically organized. How cool would (will) that be?

Roles are really fricking cool even now... I have an FX project in 7 with well over a thousand clips, all organized nicely in bins. They're just loose in one folder in the Finder, so using the media browser in X kinda sucked. I got the project into X (7toX), all the bins became KW collections so it's exactly the same as it was. I spent about a half hour assigning roles (mono fx, stereo fx, etc) to everything... EZ. Now if I want to mute or solo my gazillion tracks of fx in the timeline... click one button. If I want to slide a couple fx in relation to one another I don't have to scrub around to see what's what in my timeline, just highlight the fx. I go back to 7 and curse it now lol :-)

I also think the multiple timeline thing will be improved. X does do it it's just sort of weird how it works now. I never really use timelines as bins, but I can see your point. I just make lots of markers in my source clips, do you cut selects into different timelines? If so, the smart collection feature might actually be able to do that for you too, Tag something as "explosion" or "good line", whatever, and it just sticks it in a "bin" (keyword collection) for you. I'll have to mess around with it... the metadata stuff in X is pretty crazy. I also like being able to play or skim through sequences without actually opening them in the timeline, makes looking for something I want to grab from an earlier cut of something much simpler than opening a bunch of sequences to look through them... to me anyway...

[Chris Harlan]But, you're right. With the latest version (.03/.04), its a matter of taste now, and not Toy v. Tool... its nice to have some NLE diversity out there...

Yep... again, I'm not some wide eyed evangelist, I just forced myself to work through the "WTF is this?!" moments that I treated as show stoppers when messing with it earlier. I'm at a point where I can just cut without thinking about how the app works, and I've been pleasantly surprised. Also, having worked with early, buggy, sluggish, feature incomplete versions of FCP, I'm probably a little more forgiving than a lot of folks. ;-)

[Chris Harlan]Hey, I'm curious--when you cut that Duece Bigalow spot on ancient FCP--was it offline, or did you have one of those early Cineflex cards?"

It was offline... I remember having discussions about those cards though. Ah, the good old days... :-) Actually, the only thing about X that I may be jumping the gun on is getting elements out for finishing. X2Pro will make AAF's for protools... it works, but still needs a little fine tuning. And there's an app coming out soon that'll generate EDL's... it works too but it's still in beta. Worst case is I have to suck the spots back into 7 and export from there, not the end of the world...

Anyway, as you said... it's nice to have options and, despite the "it's a toy" FUD and "bad apple abandoned me" crowd, X *is* an option. in my worthless opinion of course ;-)

Charlie, I very much appreciate your post. Much of your organizational thinking matches mine.

I never liked that tracks had competing uses (and they do compete in my opinion). My timeline is for both horizontal and vertical compositing. I've always wanted (since my first use of Avid around 1989 or so) another method for organizing. Roles, while they still need much work as an organizing tool, is in the right direction for me. Ultimately assigning a Role should be no more work than targeting a track. Keep in mind Roles is still a work in progress but I do think it'll get to the place I hope it's going in.

Keyword collections and Smart collections matches the way my brain thinks much more so than bins. On any given day, depending on where I am in a project, a single shot might be "two shot" "exterior" "night" "NYC" or combinations of the above, depending on context. The same clip can be in all the above simultaneous. The same clip can have portions in any of the above. The clip never has to be copied and pasted in multiple bins. FCPX is malleable to my organizational needs within the same job.

Compound clips, in my Events, are my workspaces. Maybe it's one reason "magnetism" doesn't seem to be an issue with me. I create an empty Compound Clip and edit a segment and drop it in and break it apart in the Storyline. I don't need separate "workspaces" within a timeline.

I think what's missing on the stage of public information about FCPX is workflow creativity. I recently saw video author/trainer Diana Weynand talk about creative workflow (and why she likes FCPX). She brought up an example of a doc she's working on. All her initial organizing and clip naming is actually done in Finder. That might be sacrilege with some NLEs. She does this because FCPX can import folders as keyword collections. Not only is a good part of her initial organizing done by the time she imports, she said she gains that much more familiarity by organizing in Finder. She can dig into the editing process that much more quickly, once imported. It's not that this is the "right" way or "best" way so much as an option available to her.

Another creative workflow, for me, is creating empty Compound Clips in Events as workspaces. I can assemble segments and drop them in a Storyline to further rearrange then and, once happy, break them apart. Again, not a right or best way, just one of the flexible things FCPX makes easily available to me. Personally i think people tend to make the Storyline the workspace and sometimes that's exactly what you want/need to do . . . but sometimes not. It depends on the project.

I'm sure there are other creative workflows I'm not thinking of (maybe even do subconsciously because of how my brain works) but I like having this kind of flexibility.

I think too much of what is written about FCPX is about "what the buttons" do and not enough about workflow flexibility. I think this is where FCPX shines, for me.

Yes, that's why I'd like to see more sharing of creative workflow ideas.

Those of us using FCPX may be developing new ways to handle project organization (folders in finder) or editing stories (using Compound Clips in Events as workspaces) that we may not realize that others haven't discovered the possibilities. Perhaps someone is using Smart Collections in a way I haven't thought of. Maybe many of use are using Favoriting in different ways.